write your research results and get them published

Home → Get Published → How to Publish a Research Paper: A Step-by-Step Guide

How to Publish a Research Paper: A Step-by-Step Guide

Jordan Kruszynski

• January 4, 2024

You’re in academia.

You’re going steady.

Your research is going well and you begin to wonder: ‘ How exactly do I get a research paper published?’

If this is the question on your lips, then this step-by-step guide is the one for you. We’ll be walking you through the whole process of how to publish a research paper.

Publishing a research paper is a significant milestone for researchers and academics, as it allows you to share your findings, contribute to your field of study, and start to gain serious recognition within the wider academic community. So, want to know how to publish a research paper? By following our guide, you’ll get a firm grasp of the steps involved in this process, giving you the best chance of successfully navigating the publishing process and getting your work out there.

Understanding the Publishing Process

To begin, it’s crucial to understand that getting a research paper published is a multi-step process. From beginning to end, it could take as little as 2 months before you see your paper nestled in the pages of your chosen journal. On the other hand, it could take as long as a year .

Below, we set out the steps before going into more detail on each one. Getting a feel for these steps will help you to visualise what lies ahead, and prepare yourself for each of them in turn. It’s important to remember that you won’t actually have control over every step – in fact, some of them will be decided by people you’ll probably never meet. However, knowing which parts of the process are yours to decide will allow you to adjust your approach and attitude accordingly.

Each of the following stages will play a vital role in the eventual publication of your paper:

• Preparing Your Research Paper
• Finding the Right Journal
• Crafting a Strong Manuscript
• Navigating the Peer-Review Process
• Submitting Your Paper
• Dealing with Rejections and Revising Your Paper

Step 1: Preparing Your Research Paper

It all starts here. The quality and content of your research paper is of fundamental importance if you want to get it published. This step will be different for every researcher depending on the nature of your research, but if you haven’t yet settled on a topic, then consider the following advice:

• Choose an interesting and relevant topic that aligns with current trends in your field. If your research touches on the passions and concerns of your academic peers or wider society, it may be more likely to capture attention and get published successfully.
• Conduct a comprehensive literature review (link to lit. review article once it’s published) to identify the state of existing research and any knowledge gaps within it. Aiming to fill a clear gap in the knowledge of your field is a great way to increase the practicality of your research and improve its chances of getting published.
• Structure your paper in a clear and organised manner, including all the necessary sections such as title, abstract, introduction (link to the ‘how to write a research paper intro’ article once it’s published) , methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion.
• Adhere to the formatting guidelines provided by your target journal to ensure that your paper is accepted as viable for publishing. More on this in the next section…

Step 2: Finding the Right Journal

Understanding how to publish a research paper involves selecting the appropriate journal for your work. This step is critical for successful publication, and you should take several factors into account when deciding which journal to apply for:

• Conduct thorough research to identify journals that specialise in your field of study and have published similar research. Naturally, if you submit a piece of research in molecular genetics to a journal that specialises in geology, you won’t be likely to get very far.
• Consider factors such as the journal’s scope, impact factor, and target audience. Today there is a wide array of journals to choose from, including traditional and respected print journals, as well as numerous online, open-access endeavours. Some, like Nature , even straddle both worlds.
• Review the submission guidelines provided by the journal and ensure your paper meets all the formatting requirements and word limits. This step is key. Nature, for example, offers a highly informative series of pages that tells you everything you need to know in order to satisfy their formatting guidelines (plus more on the whole submission process).
• Note that these guidelines can differ dramatically from journal to journal, and details really do matter. You might submit an outstanding piece of research, but if it includes, for example, images in the wrong size or format, this could mean a lengthy delay to getting it published. If you get everything right first time, you’ll save yourself a lot of time and trouble, as well as strengthen your publishing chances in the first place.

Step 3: Crafting a Strong Manuscript

Crafting a strong manuscript is crucial to impress journal editors and reviewers. Look at your paper as a complete package, and ensure that all the sections tie together to deliver your findings with clarity and precision.

• Begin by creating a clear and concise title that accurately reflects the content of your paper.
• Compose an informative abstract that summarises the purpose, methodology, results, and significance of your study.
• Craft an engaging introduction (link to the research paper introduction article) that draws your reader in.
• Develop a well-structured methodology section, presenting your results effectively using tables and figures.
• Write a compelling discussion and conclusion that emphasise the significance of your findings.

Step 4: Navigating the Peer-Review Process

Once you submit your research paper to a journal, it undergoes a rigorous peer-review process to ensure its quality and validity. In peer-review, experts in your field assess your research and provide feedback and suggestions for improvement, ultimately determining whether your paper is eligible for publishing or not. You are likely to encounter several models of peer-review, based on which party – author, reviewer, or both – remains anonymous throughout the process.

When your paper undergoes the peer-review process, be prepared for constructive criticism and address the comments you receive from your reviewer thoughtfully, providing clear and concise responses to their concerns or suggestions. These could make all the difference when it comes to making your next submission.

The peer-review process can seem like a closed book at times. Check out our discussion of the issue with philosopher and academic Amna Whiston in The Research Beat podcast!

Step 5: Submitting Your Paper

As we’ve already pointed out, one of the key elements in how to publish a research paper is ensuring that you meticulously follow the journal’s submission guidelines. Strive to comply with all formatting requirements, including citation styles, font, margins, and reference structure.

Before the final submission, thoroughly proofread your paper for errors, including grammar, spelling, and any inconsistencies in your data or analysis. At this stage, consider seeking feedback from colleagues or mentors to further improve the quality of your paper.

Step 6: Dealing with Rejections and Revising Your Paper

Rejection is a common part of the publishing process, but it shouldn’t discourage you. Analyse reviewer comments objectively and focus on the constructive feedback provided. Make necessary revisions and improvements to your paper to address the concerns raised by reviewers. If needed, consider submitting your paper to a different journal that is a better fit for your research.

For more tips on how to publish your paper out there, check out this thread by Dr. Asad Naveed ( @dr_asadnaveed ) – and if you need a refresher on the basics of how to publish under the Open Access model, watch this 5-minute video from Audemic Academy !

Final Thoughts

Successfully understanding how to publish a research paper requires dedication, attention to detail, and a systematic approach. By following the advice in our guide, you can increase your chances of navigating the publishing process effectively and achieving your goal of publication.

Remember, the journey may involve revisions, peer feedback, and potential rejections, but each step is an opportunity for growth and improvement. Stay persistent, maintain a positive mindset, and continue to refine your research paper until it reaches the standards of your target journal. Your contribution to your wider discipline through published research will not only advance your career, but also add to the growing body of collective knowledge in your field. Embrace the challenges and rewards that come with the publication process, and may your research paper make a significant impact in your area of study!

Looking for inspiration for your next big paper? Head to Audemic , where you can organise and listen to all the best and latest research in your field!

Keep striving, researchers! ✨

Table of Contents

Related articles.

You’re in academia. You’re going steady. Your research is going well and you begin to wonder: ‘How exactly do I get a

Behind the Scenes: What Does a Research Assistant Do?

Have you ever wondered what goes on behind the scenes in a research lab? Does it involve acting out the whims of

How to Write a Research Paper Introduction: Hook, Line, and Sinker

Want to know how to write a research paper introduction that dazzles? Struggling to hook your reader in with your opening sentences?

Blog Podcast

Privacy policy Terms of service

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Discover more from Audemic: Access any academic research via audio

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Continue reading

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• 7. The Results
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

The results section is where you report the findings of your study based upon the methodology [or methodologies] you applied to gather information. The results section should state the findings of the research arranged in a logical sequence without bias or interpretation. A section describing results should be particularly detailed if your paper includes data generated from your own research.

Annesley, Thomas M. "Show Your Cards: The Results Section and the Poker Game." Clinical Chemistry 56 (July 2010): 1066-1070.

Importance of a Good Results Section

When formulating the results section, it's important to remember that the results of a study do not prove anything . Findings can only confirm or reject the hypothesis underpinning your study. However, the act of articulating the results helps you to understand the problem from within, to break it into pieces, and to view the research problem from various perspectives.

The page length of this section is set by the amount and types of data to be reported . Be concise. Use non-textual elements appropriately, such as figures and tables, to present findings more effectively. In deciding what data to describe in your results section, you must clearly distinguish information that would normally be included in a research paper from any raw data or other content that could be included as an appendix. In general, raw data that has not been summarized should not be included in the main text of your paper unless requested to do so by your professor.

Avoid providing data that is not critical to answering the research question . The background information you described in the introduction section should provide the reader with any additional context or explanation needed to understand the results. A good strategy is to always re-read the background section of your paper after you have written up your results to ensure that the reader has enough context to understand the results [and, later, how you interpreted the results in the discussion section of your paper that follows].

Bavdekar, Sandeep B. and Sneha Chandak. "Results: Unraveling the Findings." Journal of the Association of Physicians of India 63 (September 2015): 44-46; Brett, Paul. "A Genre Analysis of the Results Section of Sociology Articles." English for Specific Speakers 13 (1994): 47-59; Go to English for Specific Purposes on ScienceDirect;Burton, Neil et al. Doing Your Education Research Project . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2008; Results. The Structure, Format, Content, and Style of a Journal-Style Scientific Paper. Department of Biology. Bates College; Kretchmer, Paul. Twelve Steps to Writing an Effective Results Section. San Francisco Edit; "Reporting Findings." In Making Sense of Social Research Malcolm Williams, editor. (London;: SAGE Publications, 2003) pp. 188-207.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Organization and Approach

For most research papers in the social and behavioral sciences, there are two possible ways of organizing the results . Both approaches are appropriate in how you report your findings, but use only one approach.

• Present a synopsis of the results followed by an explanation of key findings . This approach can be used to highlight important findings. For example, you may have noticed an unusual correlation between two variables during the analysis of your findings. It is appropriate to highlight this finding in the results section. However, speculating as to why this correlation exists and offering a hypothesis about what may be happening belongs in the discussion section of your paper.
• Present a result and then explain it, before presenting the next result then explaining it, and so on, then end with an overall synopsis . This is the preferred approach if you have multiple results of equal significance. It is more common in longer papers because it helps the reader to better understand each finding. In this model, it is helpful to provide a brief conclusion that ties each of the findings together and provides a narrative bridge to the discussion section of the your paper.

NOTE :   Just as the literature review should be arranged under conceptual categories rather than systematically describing each source, you should also organize your findings under key themes related to addressing the research problem. This can be done under either format noted above [i.e., a thorough explanation of the key results or a sequential, thematic description and explanation of each finding].

II.  Content

In general, the content of your results section should include the following:

• Introductory context for understanding the results by restating the research problem underpinning your study . This is useful in re-orientating the reader's focus back to the research problem after having read a review of the literature and your explanation of the methods used for gathering and analyzing information.
• Inclusion of non-textual elements, such as, figures, charts, photos, maps, tables, etc. to further illustrate key findings, if appropriate . Rather than relying entirely on descriptive text, consider how your findings can be presented visually. This is a helpful way of condensing a lot of data into one place that can then be referred to in the text. Consider referring to appendices if there is a lot of non-textual elements.
• A systematic description of your results, highlighting for the reader observations that are most relevant to the topic under investigation . Not all results that emerge from the methodology used to gather information may be related to answering the " So What? " question. Do not confuse observations with interpretations; observations in this context refers to highlighting important findings you discovered through a process of reviewing prior literature and gathering data.
• The page length of your results section is guided by the amount and types of data to be reported . However, focus on findings that are important and related to addressing the research problem. It is not uncommon to have unanticipated results that are not relevant to answering the research question. This is not to say that you don't acknowledge tangential findings and, in fact, can be referred to as areas for further research in the conclusion of your paper. However, spending time in the results section describing tangential findings clutters your overall results section and distracts the reader.
• A short paragraph that concludes the results section by synthesizing the key findings of the study . Highlight the most important findings you want readers to remember as they transition into the discussion section. This is particularly important if, for example, there are many results to report, the findings are complicated or unanticipated, or they are impactful or actionable in some way [i.e., able to be pursued in a feasible way applied to practice].

NOTE:   Always use the past tense when referring to your study's findings. Reference to findings should always be described as having already happened because the method used to gather the information has been completed.

III.  Problems to Avoid

When writing the results section, avoid doing the following :

• Discussing or interpreting your results . Save this for the discussion section of your paper, although where appropriate, you should compare or contrast specific results to those found in other studies [e.g., "Similar to the work of Smith [1990], one of the findings of this study is the strong correlation between motivation and academic achievement...."].
• Reporting background information or attempting to explain your findings. This should have been done in your introduction section, but don't panic! Often the results of a study point to the need for additional background information or to explain the topic further, so don't think you did something wrong. Writing up research is rarely a linear process. Always revise your introduction as needed.
• Ignoring negative results . A negative result generally refers to a finding that does not support the underlying assumptions of your study. Do not ignore them. Document these findings and then state in your discussion section why you believe a negative result emerged from your study. Note that negative results, and how you handle them, can give you an opportunity to write a more engaging discussion section, therefore, don't be hesitant to highlight them.
• Including raw data or intermediate calculations . Ask your professor if you need to include any raw data generated by your study, such as transcripts from interviews or data files. If raw data is to be included, place it in an appendix or set of appendices that are referred to in the text.
• Be as factual and concise as possible in reporting your findings . Do not use phrases that are vague or non-specific, such as, "appeared to be greater than other variables..." or "demonstrates promising trends that...." Subjective modifiers should be explained in the discussion section of the paper [i.e., why did one variable appear greater? Or, how does the finding demonstrate a promising trend?].
• Presenting the same data or repeating the same information more than once . If you want to highlight a particular finding, it is appropriate to do so in the results section. However, you should emphasize its significance in relation to addressing the research problem in the discussion section. Do not repeat it in your results section because you can do that in the conclusion of your paper.
• Confusing figures with tables . Be sure to properly label any non-textual elements in your paper. Don't call a chart an illustration or a figure a table. If you are not sure, go here .

Annesley, Thomas M. "Show Your Cards: The Results Section and the Poker Game." Clinical Chemistry 56 (July 2010): 1066-1070; Bavdekar, Sandeep B. and Sneha Chandak. "Results: Unraveling the Findings." Journal of the Association of Physicians of India 63 (September 2015): 44-46; Burton, Neil et al. Doing Your Education Research Project . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2008;  Caprette, David R. Writing Research Papers. Experimental Biosciences Resources. Rice University; Hancock, Dawson R. and Bob Algozzine. Doing Case Study Research: A Practical Guide for Beginning Researchers . 2nd ed. New York: Teachers College Press, 2011; Introduction to Nursing Research: Reporting Research Findings. Nursing Research: Open Access Nursing Research and Review Articles. (January 4, 2012); Kretchmer, Paul. Twelve Steps to Writing an Effective Results Section. San Francisco Edit ; Ng, K. H. and W. C. Peh. "Writing the Results." Singapore Medical Journal 49 (2008): 967-968; Reporting Research Findings. Wilder Research, in partnership with the Minnesota Department of Human Services. (February 2009); Results. The Structure, Format, Content, and Style of a Journal-Style Scientific Paper. Department of Biology. Bates College; Schafer, Mickey S. Writing the Results. Thesis Writing in the Sciences. Course Syllabus. University of Florida.

Writing Tip

Why Don't I Just Combine the Results Section with the Discussion Section?

It's not unusual to find articles in scholarly social science journals where the author(s) have combined a description of the findings with a discussion about their significance and implications. You could do this. However, if you are inexperienced writing research papers, consider creating two distinct sections for each section in your paper as a way to better organize your thoughts and, by extension, your paper. Think of the results section as the place where you report what your study found; think of the discussion section as the place where you interpret the information and answer the "So What?" question. As you become more skilled writing research papers, you can consider melding the results of your study with a discussion of its implications.

Driscoll, Dana Lynn and Aleksandra Kasztalska. Writing the Experimental Report: Methods, Results, and Discussion. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University.

• << Previous: Insiderness
• Next: Using Non-Textual Elements >>
• Last Updated: May 15, 2024 9:53 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

You are using an outdated browser . Please upgrade your browser today !

How to Write and Publish a Research Paper in 7 Steps

What comes next after you're done with your research? Publishing the results in a journal of course! We tell you how to present your work in the best way possible.

This post is part of a series, which serves to provide hands-on information and resources for authors and editors.

Things have gotten busy in scholarly publishing: These days, a new article gets published in the 50,000 most important peer-reviewed journals every few seconds, while each one takes on average 40 minutes to read. Hundreds of thousands of papers reach the desks of editors and reviewers worldwide each year and 50% of all submissions end up rejected at some stage.

In a nutshell: there is a lot of competition, and the people who decide upon the fate of your manuscript are short on time and overworked. But there are ways to make their lives a little easier and improve your own chances of getting your work published!

Well, it may seem obvious, but before submitting an academic paper, always make sure that it is an excellent reflection of the research you have done and that you present it in the most professional way possible. Incomplete or poorly presented manuscripts can create a great deal of frustration and annoyance for editors who probably won’t even bother wasting the time of the reviewers!

This post will discuss 7 steps to the successful publication of your research paper:

• Check whether your research is publication-ready
• Choose an article type
• Choose a journal
• Construct your paper
• Decide the order of authors
• Check and double-check
• Submit your paper

1. Check Whether Your Research Is Publication-Ready

Should you publish your research at all?

If your work holds academic value – of course – a well-written scholarly article could open doors to your research community. However, if you are not yet sure, whether your research is ready for publication, here are some key questions to ask yourself depending on your field of expertise:

• Have you done or found something new and interesting? Something unique?
• Is the work directly related to a current hot topic?
• Have you checked the latest results or research in the field?
• Have you provided solutions to any difficult problems?
• Have the findings been verified?
• Have the appropriate controls been performed if required?
• Are your findings comprehensive?

If the answers to all relevant questions are “yes”, you need to prepare a good, strong manuscript. Remember, a research paper is only useful if it is clearly understood, reproducible and if it is read and used .

2. Choose An Article Type

The first step is to determine which type of paper is most appropriate for your work and what you want to achieve. The following list contains the most important, usually peer-reviewed article types in the natural sciences:

Full original research papers disseminate completed research findings. On average this type of paper is 8-10 pages long, contains five figures, and 25-30 references. Full original research papers are an important part of the process when developing your career.

Review papers present a critical synthesis of a specific research topic. These papers are usually much longer than original papers and will contain numerous references. More often than not, they will be commissioned by journal editors. Reviews present an excellent way to solidify your research career.

Letters, Rapid or Short Communications are often published for the quick and early communication of significant and original advances. They are much shorter than full articles and usually limited in length by the journal. Journals specifically dedicated to short communications or letters are also published in some fields. In these the authors can present short preliminary findings before developing a full-length paper.

3. Choose a Journal

Are you looking for the right place to publish your paper? Find out here whether a De Gruyter journal might be the right fit.

Submit to journals that you already read, that you have a good feel for. If you do so, you will have a better appreciation of both its culture and the requirements of the editors and reviewers.

Other factors to consider are:

• The specific subject area
• The aims and scope of the journal
• The type of manuscript you have written
• The significance of your work
• The reputation of the journal
• The reputation of the editors within the community
• The editorial/review and production speeds of the journal
• The community served by the journal
• The coverage and distribution
• The accessibility ( open access vs. closed access)

4. Construct Your Paper

Each element of a paper has its purpose, so you should make these sections easy to index and search.

Don’t forget that requirements can differ highly per publication, so always make sure to apply a journal’s specific instructions – or guide – for authors to your manuscript, even to the first draft (text layout, paper citation, nomenclature, figures and table, etc.) It will save you time, and the editor’s.

Also, even in these days of Internet-based publishing, space is still at a premium, so be as concise as possible. As a good journalist would say: “Never use three words when one will do!”

Let’s look at the typical structure of a full research paper, but bear in mind certain subject disciplines may have their own specific requirements so check the instructions for authors on the journal’s home page.

4.1 The Title

It’s important to use the title to tell the reader what your paper is all about! You want to attract their attention, a bit like a newspaper headline does. Be specific and to the point. Keep it informative and concise, and avoid jargon and abbreviations (unless they are universally recognized like DNA, for example).

4.2 The Abstract

This could be termed as the “advertisement” for your article. Make it interesting and easily understood without the reader having to read the whole article. Be accurate and specific, and keep it as brief and concise as possible. Some journals (particularly in the medical fields) will ask you to structure the abstract in distinct, labeled sections, which makes it even more accessible.

A clear abstract will influence whether or not your work is considered and whether an editor should invest more time on it or send it for review.

4.3 Keywords

Keywords are used by abstracting and indexing services, such as PubMed and Web of Science. They are the labels of your manuscript, which make it “searchable” online by other researchers.

Include words or phrases (usually 4-8) that are closely related to your topic but not “too niche” for anyone to find them. Make sure to only use established abbreviations. Think about what scientific terms and its variations your potential readers are likely to use and search for. You can also do a test run of your selected keywords in one of the common academic search engines. Do similar articles to your own appear? Yes? Then that’s a good sign.

4.4 Introduction

This first part of the main text should introduce the problem, as well as any existing solutions you are aware of and the main limitations. Also, state what you hope to achieve with your research.

Do not confuse the introduction with the results, discussion or conclusion.

4.5 Methods

Every research article should include a detailed Methods section (also referred to as “Materials and Methods”) to provide the reader with enough information to be able to judge whether the study is valid and reproducible.

Include detailed information so that a knowledgeable reader can reproduce the experiment. However, use references and supplementary materials to indicate previously published procedures.

4.6 Results

In this section, you will present the essential or primary results of your study. To display them in a comprehensible way, you should use subheadings as well as illustrations such as figures, graphs, tables and photos, as appropriate.

4.7 Discussion

Here you should tell your readers what the results mean .

Do state how the results relate to the study’s aims and hypotheses and how the findings relate to those of other studies. Explain all possible interpretations of your findings and the study’s limitations.

Do not make “grand statements” that are not supported by the data. Also, do not introduce any new results or terms. Moreover, do not ignore work that conflicts or disagrees with your findings. Instead …

Be brave! Address conflicting study results and convince the reader you are the one who is correct.

4.8 Conclusion

Your conclusion isn’t just a summary of what you’ve already written. It should take your paper one step further and answer any unresolved questions.

Sum up what you have shown in your study and indicate possible applications and extensions. The main question your conclusion should answer is: What do my results mean for the research field and my community?

4.9 Acknowledgments and Ethical Statements

It is extremely important to acknowledge anyone who has helped you with your paper, including researchers who supplied materials or reagents (e.g. vectors or antibodies); and anyone who helped with the writing or English, or offered critical comments about the content.

Learn more about academic integrity in our blog post “Scholarly Publication Ethics: 4 Common Mistakes You Want To Avoid” .

Remember to state why people have been acknowledged and ask their permission . Ensure that you acknowledge sources of funding, including any grant or reference numbers.

Furthermore, if you have worked with animals or humans, you need to include information about the ethical approval of your study and, if applicable, whether informed consent was given. Also, state whether you have any competing interests regarding the study (e.g. because of financial or personal relationships.)

4.10 References

The end is in sight, but don’t relax just yet!

De facto, there are often more mistakes in the references than in any other part of the manuscript. It is also one of the most annoying and time-consuming problems for editors.

Remember to cite the main scientific publications on which your work is based. But do not inflate the manuscript with too many references. Avoid excessive – and especially unnecessary – self-citations. Also, avoid excessive citations of publications from the same institute or region.

5. Decide the Order of Authors

In the sciences, the most common way to order the names of the authors is by relative contribution.

Generally, the first author conducts and/or supervises the data analysis and the proper presentation and interpretation of the results. They put the paper together and usually submit the paper to the journal.

Co-authors make intellectual contributions to the data analysis and contribute to data interpretation. They review each paper draft. All of them must be able to present the paper and its results, as well as to defend the implications and discuss study limitations.

Do not leave out authors who should be included or add “gift authors”, i.e. authors who did not contribute significantly.

6. Check and Double-Check

As a final step before submission, ask colleagues to read your work and be constructively critical .

Make sure that the paper is appropriate for the journal – take a last look at their aims and scope. Check if all of the requirements in the instructions for authors are met.

Ensure that the cited literature is balanced. Are the aims, purpose and significance of the results clear?

Conduct a final check for language, either by a native English speaker or an editing service.

7. Submit Your Paper

When you and your co-authors have double-, triple-, quadruple-checked the manuscript: submit it via e-mail or online submission system. Along with your manuscript, submit a cover letter, which highlights the reasons why your paper would appeal to the journal and which ensures that you have received approval of all authors for submission.

It is up to the editors and the peer-reviewers now to provide you with their (ideally constructive and helpful) comments and feedback. Time to take a breather!

If the paper gets rejected, do not despair – it happens to literally everybody. If the journal suggests major or minor revisions, take the chance to provide a thorough response and make improvements as you see fit. If the paper gets accepted, congrats!

It’s now time to get writing and share your hard work – good luck!

If you are interested, check out this related blog post

[Title Image by Nick Morrison via Unsplash]

David Sleeman

David Sleeman worked as Senior Journals Manager in the field of Physical Sciences at De Gruyter.

You might also be interested in

Academia & Publishing

Library Community Gives Back: 2023 Webinar Speakers’ Charity Picks

From error to excellence: embracing mistakes in library practice, the impact of transformative agreements on scholarly publishing, visit our shop.

De Gruyter publishes over 1,300 new book titles each year and more than 750 journals in the humanities, social sciences, medicine, mathematics, engineering, computer sciences, natural sciences, and law.

Pin It on Pinterest

• Langson Library
• Science Library
• Grunigen Medical Library
• Law Library
• Connect From Off-Campus
• Accessibility
• Gateway Study Center

Email this link

Writing a scientific paper.

• Writing a lab report
• INTRODUCTION

Writing a "good" results section

Figures and Captions in Lab Reports

"Results Checklist" from: How to Write a Good Scientific Paper. Chris A. Mack. SPIE. 2018.

Additional tips for results sections.

• LITERATURE CITED
• Bibliography of guides to scientific writing and presenting
• Peer Review
• Presentations
• Lab Report Writing Guides on the Web

This is the core of the paper. Don't start the results sections with methods you left out of the Materials and Methods section. You need to give an overall description of the experiments and present the data you found.

• Factual statements supported by evidence. Short and sweet without excess words
• Present representative data rather than endlessly repetitive data
• Discuss variables only if they had an effect (positive or negative)
• Use meaningful statistics
• Avoid redundancy. If it is in the tables or captions you may not need to repeat it

A short article by Dr. Brett Couch and Dr. Deena Wassenberg, Biology Program, University of Minnesota

• Present the results of the paper, in logical order, using tables and graphs as necessary.
• Explain the results and show how they help to answer the research questions posed in the Introduction. Evidence does not explain itself; the results must be presented and then explained. 
• Avoid: presenting results that are never discussed;  presenting results in chronological order rather than logical order; ignoring results that do not support the conclusions; 
• Number tables and figures separately beginning with 1 (i.e. Table 1, Table 2, Figure 1, etc.).
• Do not attempt to evaluate the results in this section. Report only what you found; hold all discussion of the significance of the results for the Discussion section.
• It is not necessary to describe every step of your statistical analyses. Scientists understand all about null hypotheses, rejection rules, and so forth and do not need to be reminded of them. Just say something like, "Honeybees did not use the flowers in proportion to their availability (X2 = 7.9, p<0.05, d.f.= 4, chi-square test)." Likewise, cite tables and figures without describing in detail how the data were manipulated. Explanations of this sort should appear in a legend or caption written on the same page as the figure or table.
• You must refer in the text to each figure or table you include in your paper.
• Tables generally should report summary-level data, such as means ± standard deviations, rather than all your raw data.  A long list of all your individual observations will mean much less than a few concise, easy-to-read tables or figures that bring out the main findings of your study.  
• Only use a figure (graph) when the data lend themselves to a good visual representation.  Avoid using figures that show too many variables or trends at once, because they can be hard to understand.

From:  https://writingcenter.gmu.edu/guides/imrad-results-discussion

• << Previous: METHODS
• Next: DISCUSSION >>
• Last Updated: Aug 4, 2023 9:33 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uci.edu/scientificwriting

Off-campus? Please use the Software VPN and choose the group UCIFull to access licensed content. For more information, please Click here

Software VPN is not available for guests, so they may not have access to some content when connecting from off-campus.

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

The Ultimate Guide to Getting Your Thesis Published in a Journal

7-minute read

• 25th February 2023

Writing your thesis and getting it published are huge accomplishments. However, publishing your thesis in an academic journal is another journey for scholars. Beyond how much hard work, time, and research you invest, having your findings published in a scholarly journal is vital for your reputation as a scholar and also advances research findings within your field.

This guide will walk you through how to make sure your thesis is ready for publication in a journal. We’ll go over how to prepare for pre-publication, how to submit your research, and what to do after acceptance.

Pre-Publication Preparations

Understanding the publishing process.

Ideally, you have already considered what type of publication outlet you want your thesis research to appear in. If not, it’s best to do this so you can tailor your writing and overall presentation to fit that publication outlet’s expectations. When selecting an outlet for your research, consider the following:

●  How well will my research fit the journal?

●  Are the reputation and quality of this journal high?

●  Who is this journal’s readership/audience?

●  How long does it take the journal to respond to a submission?

●  What’s the journal’s rejection rate?

Once you finish writing, revising, editing, and proofreading your work (which can take months or years), expect the publication process to be an additional three months or so.

Revising Your Thesis

Your thesis will need to be thoroughly revised, reworked, reorganized, and edited before a journal will accept it. Journals have specific requirements for all submissions, so read everything on a journal’s submission requirements page before you submit. Make a checklist of all the requirements to be sure you don’t overlook anything. Failing to meet the submission requirements could result in your paper being rejected.

Areas for Improvement

No doubt, the biggest challenge academics face in this journey is reducing the word count of their thesis to meet journal publication requirements. Remember that the average thesis is between 60,000 and 80,000 words, not including footnotes, appendices, and references. On the other hand, the average academic journal article is 4,000 to 7,000 words. Reducing the number of words this much may seem impossible when you are staring at the year or more of research your thesis required, but remember, many have done this before, and many will do it again. You can do it too. Be patient with the process.

Additional areas of improvement include>

·   having to reorganize your thesis to meet the section requirements of the journal you submit to ( abstract, intro , methods, results, and discussion).

·   Possibly changing your reference system to match the journal requirements or reducing the number of references.

·   Reformatting tables and figures.

·   Going through an extensive editing process to make sure everything is in place and ready.

Identifying Potential Publishers

Many options exist for publishing your academic research in a journal. However, along with the many credible and legitimate publishers available online, just as many predatory publishers are out there looking to take advantage of academics. Be sure to always check unfamiliar publishers’ credentials before commencing the process. If in doubt, ask your mentor or peer whether they think the publisher is legitimate, or you can use Think. Check. Submit .

If you need help identifying which journals your research is best suited to, there are many tools to help. Here’s a short list:

○  Elsevier JournalFinder

○  EndNote Matcher

○  Journal/Author Name Estimator (JANE)

○  Publish & Flourish Open Access

·   The topics the journal publishes and whether your research will be a good fit.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

·   The journal’s audience (whom you want to read your research).

·   The types of articles the journal publishes (e.g., reviews, case studies).

·   Your personal requirements (e.g., whether you’re willing to wait a long time to see your research published).

Submitting Your Thesis

Now that you have thoroughly prepared, it’s time to submit your thesis for publication. This can also be a long process, depending on peer review feedback.

Preparing Your Submission

Many publishers require you to write and submit a cover letter along with your research. The cover letter is your sales pitch to the journal’s editor. In the letter, you should not only introduce your work but also emphasize why it’s new, important, and worth the journal’s time to publish. Be sure to check the journal’s website to see whether submission requires you to include specific information in your cover letter, such as a list of reviewers.

Whenever you submit your thesis for publication in a journal article, it should be in its “final form” – that is, completely ready for publication. Do not submit your thesis if it has not been thoroughly edited, formatted, and proofread. Specifically, check that you’ve met all the journal-specific requirements to avoid rejection.

Navigating the Peer Review Process

Once you submit your thesis to the journal, it will undergo the peer review process. This process may vary among journals, but in general, peer reviews all address the same points. Once submitted, your paper will go through the relevant editors and offices at the journal, then one or more scholars will peer-review it. They will submit their reviews to the journal, which will use the information in its final decision (to accept or reject your submission).

While many academics wait for an acceptance letter that says “no revisions necessary,” this verdict does not appear very often. Instead, the publisher will likely give you a list of necessary revisions based on peer review feedback (these revisions could be major, minor, or a combination of the two). The purpose of the feedback is to verify and strengthen your research. When you respond to the feedback, keep these tips in mind:

●  Always be respectful and polite in your responses, even if you disagree.

●  If you do disagree, be prepared to provide supporting evidence.

●  Respond to all the comments, questions, and feedback in a clear and organized manner.

●  Make sure you have sufficient time to make any changes (e.g., whether you will need to conduct additional experiments).

After Publication

Once the journal accepts your article officially, with no further revisions needed, take a moment to enjoy the fruits of your hard work. After all, having your work appear in a distinguished journal is not an easy feat. Once you’ve finished celebrating, it’s time to promote your work. Here’s how you can do that:

●  Connect with other experts online (like their posts, follow them, and comment on their work).

●  Email your academic mentors.

●  Share your article on social media so others in your field may see your work.

●  Add the article to your LinkedIn publications.

●  Respond to any comments with a “Thank you.”

Getting your thesis research published in a journal is a long process that goes from reworking your thesis to promoting your article online. Be sure you take your time in the pre-publication process so you don’t have to make lots of revisions. You can do this by thoroughly revising, editing, formatting, and proofreading your article.

During this process, make sure you and your co-authors (if any) are going over one another’s work and having outsiders read it to make sure no comma is out of place.

What are the benefits of getting your thesis published?

Having your thesis published builds your reputation as a scholar in your field. It also means you are contributing to the body of work in your field by promoting research and communication with other scholars.

How long does it typically take to get a thesis published?

Once you have finished writing, revising, editing, formatting, and proofreading your thesis – processes that can add up to months or years of work – publication can take around three months. The exact length of time will depend on the journal you submit your work to and the peer review feedback timeline.

How can I ensure the quality of my thesis when attempting to get it published?

If you want to make sure your thesis is of the highest quality, consider having professionals proofread it before submission (some journals even require submissions to be professionally proofread). Proofed has helped thousands of researchers proofread their theses. Check out our free trial today.

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

9-minute read

How to Use Infographics to Boost Your Presentation

Is your content getting noticed? Capturing and maintaining an audience’s attention is a challenge when...

8-minute read

Why Interactive PDFs Are Better for Engagement

Are you looking to enhance engagement and captivate your audience through your professional documents? Interactive...

Seven Key Strategies for Voice Search Optimization

Voice search optimization is rapidly shaping the digital landscape, requiring content professionals to adapt their...

4-minute read

Five Creative Ways to Showcase Your Digital Portfolio

Are you a creative freelancer looking to make a lasting impression on potential clients or...

How to Ace Slack Messaging for Contractors and Freelancers

Effective professional communication is an important skill for contractors and freelancers navigating remote work environments....

3-minute read

How to Insert a Text Box in a Google Doc

Google Docs is a powerful collaborative tool, and mastering its features can significantly enhance your...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

• Privacy Policy

Home » Research Results Section – Writing Guide and Examples

Research Results Section – Writing Guide and Examples

Table of Contents

Research Results

Research results refer to the findings and conclusions derived from a systematic investigation or study conducted to answer a specific question or hypothesis. These results are typically presented in a written report or paper and can include various forms of data such as numerical data, qualitative data, statistics, charts, graphs, and visual aids.

Results Section in Research

The results section of the research paper presents the findings of the study. It is the part of the paper where the researcher reports the data collected during the study and analyzes it to draw conclusions.

In the results section, the researcher should describe the data that was collected, the statistical analysis performed, and the findings of the study. It is important to be objective and not interpret the data in this section. Instead, the researcher should report the data as accurately and objectively as possible.

Structure of Research Results Section

The structure of the research results section can vary depending on the type of research conducted, but in general, it should contain the following components:

• Introduction: The introduction should provide an overview of the study, its aims, and its research questions. It should also briefly explain the methodology used to conduct the study.
• Data presentation : This section presents the data collected during the study. It may include tables, graphs, or other visual aids to help readers better understand the data. The data presented should be organized in a logical and coherent way, with headings and subheadings used to help guide the reader.
• Data analysis: In this section, the data presented in the previous section are analyzed and interpreted. The statistical tests used to analyze the data should be clearly explained, and the results of the tests should be presented in a way that is easy to understand.
• Discussion of results : This section should provide an interpretation of the results of the study, including a discussion of any unexpected findings. The discussion should also address the study’s research questions and explain how the results contribute to the field of study.
• Limitations: This section should acknowledge any limitations of the study, such as sample size, data collection methods, or other factors that may have influenced the results.
• Conclusions: The conclusions should summarize the main findings of the study and provide a final interpretation of the results. The conclusions should also address the study’s research questions and explain how the results contribute to the field of study.
• Recommendations : This section may provide recommendations for future research based on the study’s findings. It may also suggest practical applications for the study’s results in real-world settings.

Outline of Research Results Section

The following is an outline of the key components typically included in the Results section:

I. Introduction

• A brief overview of the research objectives and hypotheses
• A statement of the research question

II. Descriptive statistics

• Summary statistics (e.g., mean, standard deviation) for each variable analyzed
• Frequencies and percentages for categorical variables

III. Inferential statistics

• Results of statistical analyses, including tests of hypotheses
• Tables or figures to display statistical results

IV. Effect sizes and confidence intervals

• Effect sizes (e.g., Cohen’s d, odds ratio) to quantify the strength of the relationship between variables
• Confidence intervals to estimate the range of plausible values for the effect size

V. Subgroup analyses

• Results of analyses that examined differences between subgroups (e.g., by gender, age, treatment group)

VI. Limitations and assumptions

• Discussion of any limitations of the study and potential sources of bias
• Assumptions made in the statistical analyses

VII. Conclusions

• A summary of the key findings and their implications
• A statement of whether the hypotheses were supported or not
• Suggestions for future research

Example of Research Results Section

An Example of a Research Results Section could be:

• This study sought to examine the relationship between sleep quality and academic performance in college students.
• Hypothesis : College students who report better sleep quality will have higher GPAs than those who report poor sleep quality.
• Methodology : Participants completed a survey about their sleep habits and academic performance.

II. Participants

• Participants were college students (N=200) from a mid-sized public university in the United States.
• The sample was evenly split by gender (50% female, 50% male) and predominantly white (85%).
• Participants were recruited through flyers and online advertisements.

III. Results

• Participants who reported better sleep quality had significantly higher GPAs (M=3.5, SD=0.5) than those who reported poor sleep quality (M=2.9, SD=0.6).
• See Table 1 for a summary of the results.
• Participants who reported consistent sleep schedules had higher GPAs than those with irregular sleep schedules.

IV. Discussion

• The results support the hypothesis that better sleep quality is associated with higher academic performance in college students.
• These findings have implications for college students, as prioritizing sleep could lead to better academic outcomes.
• Limitations of the study include self-reported data and the lack of control for other variables that could impact academic performance.

V. Conclusion

• College students who prioritize sleep may see a positive impact on their academic performance.
• These findings highlight the importance of sleep in academic success.
• Future research could explore interventions to improve sleep quality in college students.

Example of Research Results in Research Paper :

Our study aimed to compare the performance of three different machine learning algorithms (Random Forest, Support Vector Machine, and Neural Network) in predicting customer churn in a telecommunications company. We collected a dataset of 10,000 customer records, with 20 predictor variables and a binary churn outcome variable.

Our analysis revealed that all three algorithms performed well in predicting customer churn, with an overall accuracy of 85%. However, the Random Forest algorithm showed the highest accuracy (88%), followed by the Support Vector Machine (86%) and the Neural Network (84%).

Furthermore, we found that the most important predictor variables for customer churn were monthly charges, contract type, and tenure. Random Forest identified monthly charges as the most important variable, while Support Vector Machine and Neural Network identified contract type as the most important.

Overall, our results suggest that machine learning algorithms can be effective in predicting customer churn in a telecommunications company, and that Random Forest is the most accurate algorithm for this task.

Example 3 :

Title : The Impact of Social Media on Body Image and Self-Esteem

Abstract : This study aimed to investigate the relationship between social media use, body image, and self-esteem among young adults. A total of 200 participants were recruited from a university and completed self-report measures of social media use, body image satisfaction, and self-esteem.

Results: The results showed that social media use was significantly associated with body image dissatisfaction and lower self-esteem. Specifically, participants who reported spending more time on social media platforms had lower levels of body image satisfaction and self-esteem compared to those who reported less social media use. Moreover, the study found that comparing oneself to others on social media was a significant predictor of body image dissatisfaction and lower self-esteem.

Conclusion : These results suggest that social media use can have negative effects on body image satisfaction and self-esteem among young adults. It is important for individuals to be mindful of their social media use and to recognize the potential negative impact it can have on their mental health. Furthermore, interventions aimed at promoting positive body image and self-esteem should take into account the role of social media in shaping these attitudes and behaviors.

Importance of Research Results

Research results are important for several reasons, including:

• Advancing knowledge: Research results can contribute to the advancement of knowledge in a particular field, whether it be in science, technology, medicine, social sciences, or humanities.
• Developing theories: Research results can help to develop or modify existing theories and create new ones.
• Improving practices: Research results can inform and improve practices in various fields, such as education, healthcare, business, and public policy.
• Identifying problems and solutions: Research results can identify problems and provide solutions to complex issues in society, including issues related to health, environment, social justice, and economics.
• Validating claims : Research results can validate or refute claims made by individuals or groups in society, such as politicians, corporations, or activists.
• Providing evidence: Research results can provide evidence to support decision-making, policy-making, and resource allocation in various fields.

How to Write Results in A Research Paper

Here are some general guidelines on how to write results in a research paper:

• Organize the results section: Start by organizing the results section in a logical and coherent manner. Divide the section into subsections if necessary, based on the research questions or hypotheses.
• Present the findings: Present the findings in a clear and concise manner. Use tables, graphs, and figures to illustrate the data and make the presentation more engaging.
• Describe the data: Describe the data in detail, including the sample size, response rate, and any missing data. Provide relevant descriptive statistics such as means, standard deviations, and ranges.
• Interpret the findings: Interpret the findings in light of the research questions or hypotheses. Discuss the implications of the findings and the extent to which they support or contradict existing theories or previous research.
• Discuss the limitations : Discuss the limitations of the study, including any potential sources of bias or confounding factors that may have affected the results.
• Compare the results : Compare the results with those of previous studies or theoretical predictions. Discuss any similarities, differences, or inconsistencies.
• Avoid redundancy: Avoid repeating information that has already been presented in the introduction or methods sections. Instead, focus on presenting new and relevant information.
• Be objective: Be objective in presenting the results, avoiding any personal biases or interpretations.

When to Write Research Results

Here are situations When to Write Research Results”

• After conducting research on the chosen topic and obtaining relevant data, organize the findings in a structured format that accurately represents the information gathered.
• Once the data has been analyzed and interpreted, and conclusions have been drawn, begin the writing process.
• Before starting to write, ensure that the research results adhere to the guidelines and requirements of the intended audience, such as a scientific journal or academic conference.
• Begin by writing an abstract that briefly summarizes the research question, methodology, findings, and conclusions.
• Follow the abstract with an introduction that provides context for the research, explains its significance, and outlines the research question and objectives.
• The next section should be a literature review that provides an overview of existing research on the topic and highlights the gaps in knowledge that the current research seeks to address.
• The methodology section should provide a detailed explanation of the research design, including the sample size, data collection methods, and analytical techniques used.
• Present the research results in a clear and concise manner, using graphs, tables, and figures to illustrate the findings.
• Discuss the implications of the research results, including how they contribute to the existing body of knowledge on the topic and what further research is needed.
• Conclude the paper by summarizing the main findings, reiterating the significance of the research, and offering suggestions for future research.

Purpose of Research Results

The purposes of Research Results are as follows:

• Informing policy and practice: Research results can provide evidence-based information to inform policy decisions, such as in the fields of healthcare, education, and environmental regulation. They can also inform best practices in fields such as business, engineering, and social work.
• Addressing societal problems : Research results can be used to help address societal problems, such as reducing poverty, improving public health, and promoting social justice.
• Generating economic benefits : Research results can lead to the development of new products, services, and technologies that can create economic value and improve quality of life.
• Supporting academic and professional development : Research results can be used to support academic and professional development by providing opportunities for students, researchers, and practitioners to learn about new findings and methodologies in their field.
• Enhancing public understanding: Research results can help to educate the public about important issues and promote scientific literacy, leading to more informed decision-making and better public policy.
• Evaluating interventions: Research results can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions, such as treatments, educational programs, and social policies. This can help to identify areas where improvements are needed and guide future interventions.
• Contributing to scientific progress: Research results can contribute to the advancement of science by providing new insights and discoveries that can lead to new theories, methods, and techniques.
• Informing decision-making : Research results can provide decision-makers with the information they need to make informed decisions. This can include decision-making at the individual, organizational, or governmental levels.
• Fostering collaboration : Research results can facilitate collaboration between researchers and practitioners, leading to new partnerships, interdisciplinary approaches, and innovative solutions to complex problems.

Advantages of Research Results

Some Advantages of Research Results are as follows:

• Improved decision-making: Research results can help inform decision-making in various fields, including medicine, business, and government. For example, research on the effectiveness of different treatments for a particular disease can help doctors make informed decisions about the best course of treatment for their patients.
• Innovation : Research results can lead to the development of new technologies, products, and services. For example, research on renewable energy sources can lead to the development of new and more efficient ways to harness renewable energy.
• Economic benefits: Research results can stimulate economic growth by providing new opportunities for businesses and entrepreneurs. For example, research on new materials or manufacturing techniques can lead to the development of new products and processes that can create new jobs and boost economic activity.
• Improved quality of life: Research results can contribute to improving the quality of life for individuals and society as a whole. For example, research on the causes of a particular disease can lead to the development of new treatments and cures, improving the health and well-being of millions of people.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

How to Cite Research Paper – All Formats and...

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Paper Format – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

How to get your research published - hints and tips

With journal submissions increasing year on year, editors review a huge number of research papers, so it is important for your manuscript to stand out for the right reasons. This is an overview of the different factors to consider when writing your research papers and submitting them to journals.

Study design

Thinking about writing up your research is crucial at the study-design stage, before you set sample sizes, select your methods, consider your analyses and request relevant approvals. Things to consider include:

• Is your study telling the ‘whole story’?
• Is there anything missing from your study design that referees might ask for?
• What is different and unique about your study?
• What guidelines should your research conform to and do you need to seek any permissions or approvals (e.g. ethical approval)?
• How many papers will you write from the study and which journals might you send them to?

Selecting a large enough sample size is crucial as no matter how good your paper is, if you have a sample size that is too small to produce significant results, you will find it difficult to publish your findings. Sound methodology is another important aspect of study design. If you are using non-standard methods, you will need to justify them to the referees and editors. You should get feedback from your colleagues to help identify aspects that you might have overlooked; it can help you to avoid mistakes that are difficult to correct once the study is underway.

Resources for authors

There are many free resources available online that give you guidance on study design, paper writing and journal submission:

• ARRIVE guidelines 1  and checklist 2
• CONSORT statement 3
• International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations (formerly known as the ‘Uniform requirements for manuscripts’) 4
• EASE Toolkit for Authors 5
• The EASE Guidelines for Authors and Translators of Scientific Articles to be Published in English 6  is published in over 20 different languages
• Equator Network 7  has links to many useful resources, including the STROBE statement, 8  STROBE checklists 9  and STARD initiative 10

Writing up research

Editors look for concisely written, interesting papers that have a clear message. They want to understand what you’ve done, why, what you found and what it means in the context of other work. They also want to know the weaknesses, the future directions and applications of your research. Editors like a complete story, so be wary of trying to publish several papers out of one study – publishing one or two high impact papers is preferable to several lower impact papers.

A few further points to consider:

• Display items should be relevant, useful, well put together, and easy to read and understand
• Figures should have accompanying legends that are detailed enough for the figure to stand-alone without referencing the paper
• Discussion section should be interesting, engaging, discuss limitations and outline future directions
• The abstract/summary should be logically structured and concise, highlighting the key aspects of the study and most interesting outcomes
• All published work referred to in the paper should be cited in the reference list, which should be up to date and listed citations must be complete

Get as much feedback as possible from friends and colleagues before submitting your paper. Most journals operate a strict triage system and papers need to ‘stand out’ for the right reasons just to be selected for peer review.

Selecting a journal

Selecting your target journal is an important step; it is a good idea to list candidate journals. In addition to a journal’s impact factor, there are many different metrics used to assess journal impact. Journals indexed in PubMed and listed in Thompson ISI will have a wider reach than those not listed. Remember that newly launched journals will have a time lag of a few years before they are eligible for PubMed indexing or Thompson ISI listing; so if a journal does not have an impact factor or is not indexed in PubMed now, it might be in a few years. If you are considering submitting to a new journal, check whether it has any related journals and what their reputation is, and whether it has a well-known publisher and also see who is on the editorial board.

Additionally, investigate factors such as page charges, publication fees, open access publishing options (and their relative cost), availability of altmetrics data, and whether a journal will archive papers in PubMed Central following the embargo period.

Criteria for selecting a journal

• Journal scope – is your paper relevant to the journal scope?
• Journal audience – is the journal audience appropriate (national or international, general with a broad scope or specialist with a narrow scope)?
• Journal visibility – is the publication listed in Thompson ISI and indexed in PubMed? Does it have a social medial presence?
• Journal impact and reputation – the impact a journal has is not just based on its impact factor but also on its reputation in the scientific/medical community.
• Journal turnaround times – how quick is the peer-review process and how long does it take for an article to be published after acceptance?
• Open access publishing options and costs, and publication charges – does the journal have a page charge?

Submitting to a journal

Before submitting your manuscript, check the journal guidelines and format the paper correctly; check word counts and gather any relevant forms or additional items. Some journals have submission checklists, which can be helpful points of reference.

Use the abstract or summary to ‘sell’ your paper, but do not ‘oversell’ your findings. It is usually the only thing that a referee will see when deciding whether to review your paper, so highlight the important and interesting aspects of your work in a clear and concise way.

Also, ensure that all the relevant permissions and approvals are in place, including copyright permission and check that sections of text are not copied – most journals use plagiarism software to check text against previously published articles. Double-check your paper and remove any notes to your co-authors; you do not want to repeat the infamous mistake made by Culumber et al. 11  “Should we cite the crappy Gabor paper here?”. Most manuscript submission websites allow you to review a manuscript pdf to ensure the files are correct and appear in the right order.

You should list contributions made by each author to the study, and any competing or conflicting interests. Journals have criteria for what constitutes an author and when it is more appropriate to list a contributor in the acknowledgements section. Many journals will ask you to suggest suitable referees to peer review your paper, but avoid suggesting anyone who is a friend, colleague or someone you have worked with. If your study is multidisciplinary or in a subject area that has few experts, it can be difficult for journals to identify referees and doing so could speed up the peer-review process. You should avoid requesting that certain individuals are excluded as reviewers. If you feel strongly that particular people should not be considered as referees, you will need to explain why. Some journals request a submission letter be included with the manuscript; this is an opportunity to explain to the editors and referees why your research is both interesting and important. It is best to keep these letters short and informative.

Handling revisions and rejection

If your paper has been peer reviewed, comments from the referees will likely be sent to you along with the editor’s decision. You may be invited to revise your paper, or you might receive a decision of rejection or acceptance. Before you make any revisions, consider whether they are appropriate for your paper – if you choose not to address a comment, it is important to explain why.

The revisions stage is also an opportunity to check the writing style, grammar and improve your figures and tables. Check whether any relevant studies have been published that did not make it into the first version of the paper, and update your manuscript accordingly. Most journals only give you one chance to make major revisions, so the paper must be in the best shape possible when it is resubmitted and it should be accompanied by a clear rebuttal letter. The rebuttal letter should contain all the comments made by the referees and editors (preferably numbered) with a response inserted below each original comment.

Revised papers will often be reassessed by the same referees that scrutinised the original, and they might feel further changes are required or that the initial comments have not been addressed fully. Some revisions might be too extensive to undertake. In this case, you could submit elsewhere or you might need to undertake further experiments before resubmitting your paper. It is worth discussing your options with the editorial office before making a final decision to withdraw a paper.

If your paper is rejected and you have the referee reports, try to revise the paper in line with any appropriate comments before submitting it elsewhere to improve your chances of acceptance by another journal. The same referees might also be invited to review the paper by a different journal, and it is important that they see an improvement in the manuscript. If your paper is rejected before peer review, it is rare that you will receive detailed comments. If you feel strongly that the decision to reject your paper is wrong, you can appeal. Appeals rarely lead to a change in the decision but will prompt the editor(s) to look at the paper again.

Accepted, what next?

Once your paper is accepted, many journals employ copy-editors to edit papers before publication; you might be sent queries or requests for more information or new versions of figure files. You should respond to these quickly to ensure publication is not delayed. All journals should give you the opportunity to check the proofs of your paper before final publication. This is an important stage and although, ordinarily, only small changes can be made, it is your last chance to make amendments. After this, changes need to be submitted and published as errata or corrigenda.

Once your paper is available online, do what you can to promote it; this can include posting on Facebook or Twitter. Many journals have live altmetric data available on published papers so you can track the social media presence of your research. If there is any press activity planned relating to your paper, it is worth contacting the journal’s editorial office as they might be able to coordinate efforts and promote the paper and any related press releases on their own websites and those of the journal’s publisher. Getting the ‘word out’ is important to drive full-text downloads and increase the likelihood of citations.

Concluding remarks

While this is not a complete list of what to consider when writing and publishing research, I hope you find these tips useful. Writing as a scientist who has worked in the editorial offices of scientific and medical journals for the last 15 years, I encourage you to contact editorial offices with any questions relating to the journal or your submissions. The editorial office is there to help you, and as editors, we want to give authors a good experience and help you to present your research in the best possible way. Alexandra M Hay, Journals Manager, BSI

Kilkenny C, et al. (2010), Improving Bioscience Research Reporting: The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research. PLOS Biol., 8: e1000412. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000412

Kilkenny C, et al. (2010), The ARRIVE Guidelines Checklist. Animal research: reporting in vivo experiments.  http://bit.ly/1y3zLHq

Schulz K.F. et al. (2010), CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ, 340:c332.  www.consort-statement.org

ICMJE recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing and publication of scholarly work in medical journals (updated December 2014).  www.icmje.org/recommendations

EASE Toolkit for Authors.  www.ease.org.uk/publications/ease-toolkit-authors

The ‘EASE Guidelines for Authors and Translators of Scientific Articles to be Published in English’.  www.ease.org.uk/publications/author-guidelines

Equator Network.  www.equator-network.org

Von Elm E. et al. (2007), The STrengthening the Reporting of Observations Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Medicine, 16: 4(10): e296

STROBE statement website  www.strobe-statement.org .

Bossuyt P.M. et al. (2003), Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy. BMJ, 326:41–44.  www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/stard

Culumber Z.W. et al. (2014),Variation in melanism and female preference in proximate but ecologically distinct environments. Ethology, 120: 1090–1100

• Affiliate Program

• UNITED STATES
• 台灣 (TAIWAN)
• TÜRKIYE (TURKEY)
• Academic Editing Services
• - Research Paper
• - Journal Manuscript
• - Dissertation
• - College & University Assignments
• Admissions Editing Services
• - Application Essay
• - Personal Statement
• - Recommendation Letter
• - Cover Letter
• - CV/Resume
• Business Editing Services
• - Business Documents
• - Report & Brochure
• - Website & Blog
• Writer Editing Services
• - Script & Screenplay
• Our Editors
• Client Reviews
• Editing & Proofreading Prices
• Wordvice Points
• Partner Discount
• Plagiarism Checker
• APA Citation Generator
• MLA Citation Generator
• Chicago Citation Generator
• Vancouver Citation Generator
• - APA Style
• - MLA Style
• - Chicago Style
• - Vancouver Style
• Writing & Editing Guide
• Academic Resources
• Admissions Resources

How to Write the Results/Findings Section in Research

What is the research paper Results section and what does it do?

The Results section of a scientific research paper represents the core findings of a study derived from the methods applied to gather and analyze information. It presents these findings in a logical sequence without bias or interpretation from the author, setting up the reader for later interpretation and evaluation in the Discussion section. A major purpose of the Results section is to break down the data into sentences that show its significance to the research question(s).

The Results section appears third in the section sequence in most scientific papers. It follows the presentation of the Methods and Materials and is presented before the Discussion section —although the Results and Discussion are presented together in many journals. This section answers the basic question “What did you find in your research?”

What is included in the Results section?

The Results section should include the findings of your study and ONLY the findings of your study. The findings include:

• Data presented in tables, charts, graphs, and other figures (may be placed into the text or on separate pages at the end of the manuscript)
• A contextual analysis of this data explaining its meaning in sentence form
• All data that corresponds to the central research question(s)
• All secondary findings (secondary outcomes, subgroup analyses, etc.)

If the scope of the study is broad, or if you studied a variety of variables, or if the methodology used yields a wide range of different results, the author should present only those results that are most relevant to the research question stated in the Introduction section .

As a general rule, any information that does not present the direct findings or outcome of the study should be left out of this section. Unless the journal requests that authors combine the Results and Discussion sections, explanations and interpretations should be omitted from the Results.

How are the results organized?

The best way to organize your Results section is “logically.” One logical and clear method of organizing research results is to provide them alongside the research questions—within each research question, present the type of data that addresses that research question.

Let’s look at an example. Your research question is based on a survey among patients who were treated at a hospital and received postoperative care. Let’s say your first research question is:

“What do hospital patients over age 55 think about postoperative care?”

This can actually be represented as a heading within your Results section, though it might be presented as a statement rather than a question:

Attitudes towards postoperative care in patients over the age of 55

Now present the results that address this specific research question first. In this case, perhaps a table illustrating data from a survey. Likert items can be included in this example. Tables can also present standard deviations, probabilities, correlation matrices, etc.

Following this, present a content analysis, in words, of one end of the spectrum of the survey or data table. In our example case, start with the POSITIVE survey responses regarding postoperative care, using descriptive phrases. For example:

“Sixty-five percent of patients over 55 responded positively to the question “ Are you satisfied with your hospital’s postoperative care ?” (Fig. 2)

Include other results such as subcategory analyses. The amount of textual description used will depend on how much interpretation of tables and figures is necessary and how many examples the reader needs in order to understand the significance of your research findings.

Next, present a content analysis of another part of the spectrum of the same research question, perhaps the NEGATIVE or NEUTRAL responses to the survey. For instance:

  “As Figure 1 shows, 15 out of 60 patients in Group A responded negatively to Question 2.”

After you have assessed the data in one figure and explained it sufficiently, move on to your next research question. For example:

  “How does patient satisfaction correspond to in-hospital improvements made to postoperative care?”

This kind of data may be presented through a figure or set of figures (for instance, a paired T-test table).

Explain the data you present, here in a table, with a concise content analysis:

“The p-value for the comparison between the before and after groups of patients was .03% (Fig. 2), indicating that the greater the dissatisfaction among patients, the more frequent the improvements that were made to postoperative care.”

Let’s examine another example of a Results section from a study on plant tolerance to heavy metal stress . In the Introduction section, the aims of the study are presented as “determining the physiological and morphological responses of Allium cepa L. towards increased cadmium toxicity” and “evaluating its potential to accumulate the metal and its associated environmental consequences.” The Results section presents data showing how these aims are achieved in tables alongside a content analysis, beginning with an overview of the findings:

“Cadmium caused inhibition of root and leave elongation, with increasing effects at higher exposure doses (Fig. 1a-c).”

The figure containing this data is cited in parentheses. Note that this author has combined three graphs into one single figure. Separating the data into separate graphs focusing on specific aspects makes it easier for the reader to assess the findings, and consolidating this information into one figure saves space and makes it easy to locate the most relevant results.

Following this overall summary, the relevant data in the tables is broken down into greater detail in text form in the Results section.

• “Results on the bio-accumulation of cadmium were found to be the highest (17.5 mg kgG1) in the bulb, when the concentration of cadmium in the solution was 1×10G2 M and lowest (0.11 mg kgG1) in the leaves when the concentration was 1×10G3 M.”

Captioning and Referencing Tables and Figures

Tables and figures are central components of your Results section and you need to carefully think about the most effective way to use graphs and tables to present your findings . Therefore, it is crucial to know how to write strong figure captions and to refer to them within the text of the Results section.

The most important advice one can give here as well as throughout the paper is to check the requirements and standards of the journal to which you are submitting your work. Every journal has its own design and layout standards, which you can find in the author instructions on the target journal’s website. Perusing a journal’s published articles will also give you an idea of the proper number, size, and complexity of your figures.

Regardless of which format you use, the figures should be placed in the order they are referenced in the Results section and be as clear and easy to understand as possible. If there are multiple variables being considered (within one or more research questions), it can be a good idea to split these up into separate figures. Subsequently, these can be referenced and analyzed under separate headings and paragraphs in the text.

To create a caption, consider the research question being asked and change it into a phrase. For instance, if one question is “Which color did participants choose?”, the caption might be “Color choice by participant group.” Or in our last research paper example, where the question was “What is the concentration of cadmium in different parts of the onion after 14 days?” the caption reads:

 “Fig. 1(a-c): Mean concentration of Cd determined in (a) bulbs, (b) leaves, and (c) roots of onions after a 14-day period.”

Steps for Composing the Results Section

Because each study is unique, there is no one-size-fits-all approach when it comes to designing a strategy for structuring and writing the section of a research paper where findings are presented. The content and layout of this section will be determined by the specific area of research, the design of the study and its particular methodologies, and the guidelines of the target journal and its editors. However, the following steps can be used to compose the results of most scientific research studies and are essential for researchers who are new to preparing a manuscript for publication or who need a reminder of how to construct the Results section.

Step 1 : Consult the guidelines or instructions that the target journal or publisher provides authors and read research papers it has published, especially those with similar topics, methods, or results to your study.

• The guidelines will generally outline specific requirements for the results or findings section, and the published articles will provide sound examples of successful approaches.
• Note length limitations on restrictions on content. For instance, while many journals require the Results and Discussion sections to be separate, others do not—qualitative research papers often include results and interpretations in the same section (“Results and Discussion”).
• Reading the aims and scope in the journal’s “ guide for authors ” section and understanding the interests of its readers will be invaluable in preparing to write the Results section.

Step 2 : Consider your research results in relation to the journal’s requirements and catalogue your results.

• Focus on experimental results and other findings that are especially relevant to your research questions and objectives and include them even if they are unexpected or do not support your ideas and hypotheses.
• Catalogue your findings—use subheadings to streamline and clarify your report. This will help you avoid excessive and peripheral details as you write and also help your reader understand and remember your findings. Create appendices that might interest specialists but prove too long or distracting for other readers.
• Decide how you will structure of your results. You might match the order of the research questions and hypotheses to your results, or you could arrange them according to the order presented in the Methods section. A chronological order or even a hierarchy of importance or meaningful grouping of main themes or categories might prove effective. Consider your audience, evidence, and most importantly, the objectives of your research when choosing a structure for presenting your findings.

Step 3 : Design figures and tables to present and illustrate your data.

• Tables and figures should be numbered according to the order in which they are mentioned in the main text of the paper.
• Information in figures should be relatively self-explanatory (with the aid of captions), and their design should include all definitions and other information necessary for readers to understand the findings without reading all of the text.
• Use tables and figures as a focal point to tell a clear and informative story about your research and avoid repeating information. But remember that while figures clarify and enhance the text, they cannot replace it.

Step 4 : Draft your Results section using the findings and figures you have organized.

• The goal is to communicate this complex information as clearly and precisely as possible; precise and compact phrases and sentences are most effective.
• In the opening paragraph of this section, restate your research questions or aims to focus the reader’s attention to what the results are trying to show. It is also a good idea to summarize key findings at the end of this section to create a logical transition to the interpretation and discussion that follows.
• Try to write in the past tense and the active voice to relay the findings since the research has already been done and the agent is usually clear. This will ensure that your explanations are also clear and logical.
• Make sure that any specialized terminology or abbreviation you have used here has been defined and clarified in the  Introduction section .

Step 5 : Review your draft; edit and revise until it reports results exactly as you would like to have them reported to your readers.

• Double-check the accuracy and consistency of all the data, as well as all of the visual elements included.
• Read your draft aloud to catch language errors (grammar, spelling, and mechanics), awkward phrases, and missing transitions.
• Ensure that your results are presented in the best order to focus on objectives and prepare readers for interpretations, valuations, and recommendations in the Discussion section . Look back over the paper’s Introduction and background while anticipating the Discussion and Conclusion sections to ensure that the presentation of your results is consistent and effective.
• Consider seeking additional guidance on your paper. Find additional readers to look over your Results section and see if it can be improved in any way. Peers, professors, or qualified experts can provide valuable insights.

One excellent option is to use a professional English proofreading and editing service  such as Wordvice, including our paper editing service . With hundreds of qualified editors from dozens of scientific fields, Wordvice has helped thousands of authors revise their manuscripts and get accepted into their target journals. Read more about the  proofreading and editing process  before proceeding with getting academic editing services and manuscript editing services for your manuscript.

As the representation of your study’s data output, the Results section presents the core information in your research paper. By writing with clarity and conciseness and by highlighting and explaining the crucial findings of their study, authors increase the impact and effectiveness of their research manuscripts.

For more articles and videos on writing your research manuscript, visit Wordvice’s Resources page.

Wordvice Resources

• How to Write a Research Paper Introduction 
• Which Verb Tenses to Use in a Research Paper
• How to Write an Abstract for a Research Paper
• How to Write a Research Paper Title
• Useful Phrases for Academic Writing
• Common Transition Terms in Academic Papers
• Active and Passive Voice in Research Papers
• 100+ Verbs That Will Make Your Research Writing Amazing
• Tips for Paraphrasing in Research Papers

Course catalogue doctoral education - VT24

• All courses
• List of courses by programme
• List of courses by department
• Eligibility and selection
• General Data Protection Regulation
• Katalog i PDF (HT23)
• Katalog i PDF (VT24)

Course application

• Login or register

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
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Writing and Publishing Your Research Findings

Charles t. quinn.

* Department of Pediatrics, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, TX

† Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, TX

A. John Rush

‡ Department of Psychiatry, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, TX

§ Clinical Sciences, Duke-National University of Singapore, Singapore

Writing clearly is critical to the success of your scientific career. Unfortunately, this skill is not taught in medical school or postgraduate training. This article summarizes our approach to the writing and publication of your research. Here we focus on empirical or experimental reports of translational and clinically oriented research. We review the process of choosing what to write, how to write it clearly, and how to navigate the process of submission and publication.

INTRODUCTION

Articulate writing is critical to scientific success.

This article summarizes material presented in a course that we have taught at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas. The material is a synthesis of material from a variety of sources (see References), to which we have added our own, sometimes idiosyncratic, suggestions for developing peer-reviewed journal reports of clinical and translational research. We particularly want to acknowledge Essentials of Writing Biomedical Research Papers by Mimi Zeiger 1 at the University of California at San Francisco, whose book we highly recommend.

Writing clearly and accurately is critical to the success of your scientific career. If you do not write clearly, your article will not be cited. If you are not cited, you will not get promoted. If you do not get promoted, you will not have a job. Writing clearly to maximize your likelihood of being cited by others is key to your scientific survival. Published research is your only final product. A poorly written report could mean that you have wasted years conducting your study, because what you have done will not be cited or known. As such, it will not impact the field. The threat of career failure should be a powerful motivator for writing clearly, as is doing the very best science that one can.

Each article tells a story, but there is no “one true path” to writing. We each learn how to use our talents, overcome our deficiencies, and develop our skills differently. Each article we write is less difficult, but none is ever easy. To avoid feeling overwhelmed by the effort, we suggest that you approach writing as a series of questions to be clearly answered. What was the research question? Why does the answer matter? What was done? What was found? Has anyone else found that (or not)? What might it mean? What limitations or qualifications apply to the findings?

Define What to Report

What are you going to write? Obviously, the primary paper focuses on the main hypotheses that you tested. But there may be several secondary hypotheses and maybe a couple of tertiary papers that are hypothesis generating. But be careful. Do not write trivial papers (third-rate papers with too small samples). They take too much time, are not cited, and have minimal to no payoff.

So, consider at the outset what aspects of the project are to be submitted, where, and in what order. What is the primary paper? Are there secondary papers? Clinical investigation often requires many people, so consider which colleagues might like to take the lead on a secondary paper. That is, depending on the size of the study and the contributions, needs, and expertise of your multidisciplinary research team, think about additional papers for others than yourself.

Getting Started

How often have you heard, “I have writer’s block”? What does that mean? Everybody who has attended medical, dental, or nursing school can write. Thus, “writer’s block” is a fiction— an excuse. The underlying fear may be that either one cannot think clearly enough to be able to say what was done (in which case, a career change is indicated!) or one is afraid that the product will not be “good enough” and therefore procrastinates.

To overcome “writer’s block,” simply realize at the outset that most of the words in the first draft will not make it to the final draft. Once you have something on paper, however, you can edit it—repeatedly. To get it on paper, dictate, type, or handwrite it (whatever is fastest for you). We recommend that you start with an outline. The outline is straightforward: title, abstract, introduction, methods, results (with tables and figures), discussion, conclusions, references, acknowledgements, and disclosures. Then write a topic sentence for each paragraph in each section. The outline and the topic sentences should take you about an hour-and-a-half to write. Then start to write each paragraph in the 4 key sections (introduction, methods, results, and discussion).

One place to begin is with the protocol that you followed to conduct the study. The protocol contains the aims, hypotheses/questions, rationale, and methods. Thus, the protocol is the basis for the first drafts of the introduction and methods. You may need to update the significance (to beef up the introduction) and to cite the newest relevant literature. Borrow from what you have done to begin.

Recall that journals limit articles to 3000 to 4000 words. If each paragraph has 200 words, you have to write 18 to 20 paragraphs ( Table 1 ). The introduction has 3 to 4 paragraphs (never longer than 2 manuscript pages); discussion has 5; results typically has 4 to 6, depending on the number of questions; leaving 5 to 6 for methods. Once you break it down this way, it does not seem so bad.

The Main Elements of a Manuscript

Prepare to Spend Time

Realize that writing takes a lot of time. You must set aside uninterrupted time, which in our view is best inserted between other activities that do not involve writing. Write for a while, then stop and leave it alone. When you go back later, you will be more objective and be better able to edit your prior work. Too many people frustrate themselves by expecting to write up 4 years of work in 4 weeks. That is not realistic, especially if you have not written many prior papers, if you have other duties, or both. So think about what you want to produce and divide the work into “doable” pieces (eg, the major sections noted above). Allocate a fixed amount of uninterrupted time each day to work on 1 section at a time to assemble these pieces without regard to how well it is written and without thinking about references. Simply tell the story.

Tell the Story

Look at the big picture first. Recall that you know more about what you have done than anybody else, so do not get nervous. You know the story—what you did and why you did it. Writing the first draft should not be a big thing. Polishing your drafts is where the time is.

The most important thing is to tell the story. Most people get stuck in the details and lose track of the story. Readers want to know what the issues were, why they matter, and what questions were asked (introduction). Then how were the issues addressed, questions answered, and hypotheses tested (methods)? Next, what were the answers (results)? The results section is divided into subheadings, often based on the questions or hypotheses at the end of the introduction. A table or figure should accompany each question. Finally, what do you make of the results (discussion)? These are the major sections of each empirical report for scientific journals ( Tables 1 and ​ and2 2 ).

Elements of the Story Line

Recall for Whom You Are Writing

Do not write your paper for scientists, colleagues, the promotion and tenure committee, or your department chair. Tell the story as if you were talking to somebody who is not an expert in your area. If you make the article that simple and straightforward, readers will be able to understand what you did and be able to cite the paper. If you use a lot of jargon, compound sentences, or obscure wording, only you and your coauthors will actually know what you are saying.

Table 3 highlights the most common reasons for rejection/revision. Most of these issues can be addressed by being pithy (succinct but full of substance and meaning) and consistent. Sentences should be simple: subject, verb, object, period. Whenever possible, avoid compound sentences. Do not change terminology throughout the paper (eg, do not interchangeably use subjects, participants, patients, or volunteers). Readers will wonder why you changed the names. Whatever word or phrase you use to describe something, keep using the same term. This is not an English essay or creative-writing class. A scientific article uses an expository writing style—it simply tells the facts. The reader needs specificity, clarity, and brevity—not engaging phraseology. Be very specific. Avoid general statements such as, “The patients improved.” What does that mean? Better to say something like “Patients in group A had a greater reduction in X than did patients in group B; test, P value (Table X).” Finally, physicians tend to be pompous in their style of writing. Avoid this; it prevents clear communication. Invest in a guide to clear medical writing to help. 2

Common Reasons for Rejection or Revision

Let us now consider each element in a manuscript.

THE MANUSCRIPT

The title should have 12 words or fewer (pithy). Notice that movies do not have long titles. The Fugitive . Not Escaping Jail Following an Unfair Conviction in Chicago . Just The Fugitive .

Do not say: “A study of X.” Of course it is a study. That wastes words. Begin the title with a key word. Be to the point. Grab the reader’s attention. Table 4 lists characteristics of a good title.

Characteristics of a Good Title

There are 2 kinds of abstracts: structured and unstructured. Structured abstracts have distinct subsections: objectives, methods, results, and conclusions (these may vary by journal). Unstructured abstracts contain the same information, but are just 1 long paragraph.

Most people do not read an entire article. Everyone reads the abstract. So whatever is in the abstract is what everyone thinks is in the article. Therefore, it is critical to edit, polish, and perfect the abstract, because it is almost the only information that readers will take home.

What is the state of knowledge? What was the question (background)? What did you do and how did you do it (methods)? What did you find (results)? What is the bottom line (conclusion)? That’s it!

We like to write the abstract first because it forces us to give the 10-second version of the paper. Then we polish it repeatedly after we write the article. The abstract will change a lot—often not substantively, but especially in terms of clarifying and simplifying the presentation. If you write your abstract first, you must ensure that it matches the final manuscript.

Introduction

At the beginning, tell the readers the problem ( Table 5 ). What do we know and what do we not know? Why does this matter? Then, what are the questions or hypotheses to be addressed or tested? What, in brief, was the approach?

The Introduction: Start Broadly, Then Narrow

The introduction should hook the reader. Paragraph no. 1: What is known? For example, “Diabetes is bad news, especially when it is associated with fatty liver.” Paragraph no. 2: What is unknown? For example, “We do not know how to treat patients with this complication.”

Paragraph no. 3: What is the question or hypothesis? “This study was conducted to determine whether A is better than B in improving fatty liver in patients with diabetes.” What was done? “We addressed this question by conducting a randomized controlled trial of A versus B in diabetic patients with fatty liver.” Be sure the introduction states your questions or hypotheses. End the introduction with a statement of your hypothesis: “We hypothesized that A was significantly better than B at decreasing fatty liver because….” Bingo, the introduction is done.

The introduction is NOT a literature review. Do not over-reference. Seven to 10 references are plenty. Less experienced writers seem to feel the need to cite the entire literature before getting to the methods. Do not. Everybody will trust that you can read. What they want to know is what was the issue. Why is it important? How did you approach the problem?

A poorly written methods section is a major reason for rejection. Be specific. Give details. Readers must know what you did. Remember, someone may try to replicate what you did! If the replication fails, your credibility is questioned. Give enough detail to ensure that another scientist can replicate exactly what you did. Give no more detail than is necessary, but give all the details that are required for replication.

The methods section is typically in chronological order. What did you do first? Then what did you do? Methods can be dense. Use subheadings in the text to guide the reader. Table 6 lists common elements (subheadings) of methods.

Common Elements of the Methods

First, provide the study overview. What was the design? When was the study done? Where was it done? For example, “We conducted a multicenter randomized clinical trial of drug A versus placebo for 6 months in participants with type 2 diabetes and fatty liver.” This brief, 30,000-ft overview primes the reader for the dense (but clear) text that follows.

Then provide the details ( Table 6 ). How did you recruit the sample? Consecutive? When you felt like it? How did you define who is eligible? When did the study start and stop? And so on. Do not include results in the methods section. The rules for obtaining the sample are in methods. The sample that you obtained by using these rules is described in the first paragraph of results. 3 , 4 It is very important to say how the current sample relates to other reports of the same or related samples. Be very clear about whether patients in your study were or were not included in any prior reports. People doing meta-analyses or literature reviews, for example, must know whether the present sample is distinct or not from other samples. Surprisingly, you often cannot tell whether 2 reported samples are partially overlapping, the same, or distinct.

Describe where the study was conducted. Define all the variables used in the report, but none of the variables not in the report. Sometimes you might collect variables not included in this report. If they are in another report, you do not have to put them in this report.

What was the rationale for the randomization? Was it stratified? Was it computer based or did you use a table? Did you randomize in blocks? What was the informed consent process? Was there institutional review board or data safety monitoring board oversight? Were measurements blinded? Who was blinded and how?

How did you deliver the treatment of interest? How often were they treated? Who provided the treatment? How else were they managed? Could there be home visits? Could there be extra visits? Be very specific.

Did you assess whether patients adhered to treatment? If so, how? Did you ask them, count pills, or use MEMS caps?

How did you ensure that the people who delivered the study treatment did what they were supposed to do? Was there a manual? Was there quality control?

How were concomitant medicines managed? What rescue treatments or other efforts were used when patients worsened?

What were your outcomes or end points? Which was your primary outcome? Which were secondary? Who measured or obtained the end points? How? When? Was there quality control for these measures? Who did it? How? How often?

What sample size did you use? What kind of difference did you expect? What difference was expected? Did you power the study to detect this difference? What is the power? Why did you choose the statistical tests you did? Who did the analyses? Finally, it is very important that your coauthors see the data and have some discussion with the statistician so they really understand how the study was analyzed. You have to assume that your coauthors are going to make slides from this study and present it somewhere. If they do not understand the analysis, the audience will not. And they will be misinformed, unfairly judge your study, or both.

When writing the results, we first build the tables and figures. Then we write the text to tell the story, answering the study questions, around the tables and figures. The text of results is often brief because the tables and figures provide the findings. Be pithy. The less you elaborate, the clearer you will be. You want the bottom line to be very, very clear. Remember, results is for the results. The introduction tells readers why you did the study. How you arrived at the results is in methods. What the results mean is in discussion.

Start with the results of the most important question, then the second most important, and so on. Or organize the section chronologically. Use subheadings to denote each question or section. There should be no interpretation of findings in results. Make the results exciting, but do not hype. Table 7 lists important points to consider when writing this section.

The Results

If your patient sample is not extremely simple in composition, use a CONSORT chart. 3 , 4 This chart explicitly and clearly shows how you obtained the evaluable sample. It will save you many words. Journals may require this chart, especially for clinical trials. If 2 (or more) groups were compared, describe and compare these groups at baseline. Serious adverse events, tolerability, attrition, and dosing may be in subsequent tables. Describe patients sensitively. People are not schizophrenics or diabetics. They are patients with schizophrenia or diabetes. They are participants, not subjects. Why participants? Because they chose to participate by giving consent. Subjects, such as rats, do not give consent. 5

It is critical that the tables and figures carry the message. Do not repeat in the text what is in the tables and figures. Why? People can read the tables and figures. Use the text to direct the reader to the tables and figures. A sentence or 2 in the text to draw attention to a few key findings might be useful in the results section, but do not comment on every item in each table.

Tables and Figures

Figures and tables should stand alone. That is, each should be understood without reference to the text. The text simply alerts the reader when to look for them. So, if you use abbreviations or acronyms here, spell them out in the footnotes and legends. A figure has a title and legend that explains it; a table has a title and footnotes, if necessary, but no legend. Each figure or table should be on a separate sheet of paper. Remember, readers may use your tables and figures as slides. Make them clear and self-contained so that the slide has meaning.

Provide clear names for each column of your table. The study variables (eg, age, sex, severe adverse events, remission rates) are typically in the leftmost column, and each defines a row. The data are in the columns to the right. Avoid vertical lines in tables. The rows should have few to no horizontal lines.

Whenever you use a percentage in tables (and elsewhere), give the numerator and denominator so the reader can see how you derived it. We like to put significant P values in bold, but always follow journal style. Give the actual P value, not “NS” or “<0.05.” Only use decimal places that are informative. For example, nobody knows what 48.134 years of age means. Report 48.1 years. Keep it simple.

Good figures are worth a thousand words and probably several tables. Figures should show your primary comparisons. The reader should be able to look at the figures and tables and know what the questions and answers are without reading the text. Avoid 3-dimensional figures and gratuitous color and shading. Most of the ink used to print your table should represent your data, not explanatory or decorative material. Creating clear and meaningful figures is a skill one learns. Practice it. Texts by Tufte 6 and Goodman and Edwards 2 can aid you in good design.

Next to the abstract, we find the discussion to be the most difficult part to write. We may be excited about what we have found and have lots to say about it. This may make the discussion wander. Here is a way to organize the discussion ( Table 8 ).

Elements of the Discussion

The first paragraph summarizes what you found. “This study was designed to determine whether A is better than B with regard to X. We found A was better than B in terms of tolerability, side effects, and remission rates, but not in terms of Y.” If there was a second question, then the findings follow in the same first paragraph. You told them the questions (hypotheses) at the end of the introduction. Now, you summarize the answers. Avoid repeating the results; you just stated them.

The second paragraph of discussion addresses the question: “Has anybody else found anything like or different from what you found?” That is, how does it compare to the literature? If your findings are different, why? Is it the method, the sample, or measurement differences?

The third paragraph addresses the theoretical or clinical implications of the findings. What do these results mean about the utility or mechanisms of the study treatment or the pathophysiology of the disease being studied?

The fourth paragraph highlights limitations (and strengths). Limitations commonly include design, methods, generalizability, and internal validity. How certain are you about the results? A small study cannot be generalized. Measurements may have been too infrequent or too insensitive to detect an effect. Attrition may have been high. How does that affect certainty? Do not overstate the certainty of your findings. If you do not acknowledge the limitations of your report, the reviewers will make you. This is low-hanging fruit. Do not give reviewers the opportunity. Be honest, but this is your chance to frame the limitations in the best light. Remember, all studies have weaknesses. Do not feel embarrassed to list and discuss them. If your study has particular strengths, you may also highlight them here. This may soften the blow of the limitations.

Conclusions are pithy. Three sentences are enough—only 1 paragraph. A conclusion is: “A is better than B for these kinds of patients. This conclusion is limited by X and Y.” Some journals like you to suggest policy, economic, or practice implications—this is your final sentence: “Since X is better than Y and we have no other treatment for these patients, we recommend despite the limitations of this first trial that X might be a better treatment, but confirmatory studies are needed.” A common phrase that ends the conclusion is “more studies are needed.” Do not use it. More studies are always needed. Instead, state what studies you think are needed.

Leave the insertion of citations for the end. Where do references come up in the article? Largely in the introduction (7–10), methods (6–9), and discussion (15–20) (maximum, 30–40). The few references in the introduction should help lay out the problem and say why it is important. An introduction is NOT a literature review. The references in methods refer to measurements or techniques described in detail elsewhere. You do not have to describe them again; reference them.

If you use someone else’s idea, give appropriate credit. Remember, that person could be a reviewer. You do not have to cite everything, just that which is immediately relevant to support your point. Rely on peer-reviewed literature, reports, and reviews.

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements are undervalued by authors but highly valued by colleagues. Be generous. Cite those people who substantially assisted in the project (eg, research assistants, key staff). Remember all the people who truly contributed to the success of the study, but who are not authors, and recognize them here.

Disclosures

Journals have different but increasingly strict rules about disclosure. Follow them closely. If you are in doubt about a relationship, disclose it. Only underdisclosing, not overdisclosing, will embarrass you.

GETTING IT PUBLISHED

This is a thorny issue. If you are the principal investigator, we strongly advise that you meet with your study team when you launch a study to talk about authorship. Consider who will write up the primary question and key secondary questions. Talk it through early, so everybody knows the expectations from the beginning. This is especially important for junior faculty who need to know, after spending a couple of years on the study, what are they going to get out of it.

Who is supposed to be an author? Most journals have specific requirements. Those who have contributed to the design and execution of the project and helped in developing the manuscript are logical possible coauthors. Just raising funds or being the chairman of the department does not qualify (use the acknowledgements for these individuals).

Typically, hired or support staff are not authors, but there may be exceptions, depending on their contributions. Students or fellows can certainly qualify if they make a substantive contribution either at the beginning, during the data analysis, or with the writing.

For large or multisite studies, it is extremely important to have a publication committee. Try to get on the publication committee. Some studies base authorship on enrollment, scientific expertise, execution of the study, and leadership. Have these discussions early and be up-front about authorship. Most people do not like to talk about authorship (as they do not like to talk about their salary). But you cannot be shy. Younger faculty need to be first, second, or third author. Beyond third author, you are “et al.” Last is for senior authors.

Rewrites are critical. There are many reasons to rewrite ( Table 9 ). We suggest that you go after specific targets with each rewrite. If you have coauthors, use them. The first author should not have to write everything if coauthors are to merit the recognition. Once you get a draft, share it with coauthors and direct each one to a task. “X, please revise the introduction.” “Y, please revise the methods.” You distribute the work and have it come back to you. You have final editorial say as the first author. It also helps you to see how your coauthors interpret what you have written, what questions they have, and what changes they suggest.

Reasons to Rewrite

When you ask coauthors to rewrite, set the time frame and tell them exactly what you want them to do. “Please give me feedback on the results section. Please review and revise within 7 days.” Everybody has a large pile of things to do. Without a scheduled time limit, the article goes to the bottom of the pile. Rewrite 1 section at a time. Sequence the writers, so somebody does one section and someone else does another. But remember, the manuscript should not read as if there was a different author for each section. So, you have to ensure that the entire text “flows” and is stylistically consistent.

Table 9 shows areas of attention for rewrites. Shorten the introduction. Polish the abstract. Shorten the discussion. Double-check the methods to be sure the words are totally explicit, specific, and detailed. Delete jargon. Delete words. Make sure your tables and figures, if read alone, tell the results all by themselves.

Outside Readers

Once you and coauthors have written the article to its “final version,” send it to 2 people who have no idea what you do, but who are intelligent and can communicate. They do not have to be experts in your area. Ask them to proofread the paper. Then ask them to tell you in their own words what you found. That way you will know whether they got the message.

Choosing a Journal

In choosing a journal, select one that is highly regarded with a high citation index. The journal content should match what you are reporting, so the readership will be interested in what you have to say. Some journals restrict length a lot—some less so, which might be a consideration in choosing a journal. Pick a journal as your first target that is bit of a long shot (sort of a stretch), but have in mind a second choice if the first rejects the paper. It is helpful if your second choice has similar requirements as the first. For example, you do not want to be limited to 4000 words for the first journal but to 2500 words for the second.

Rejections and Resubmissions

Rejections and negative reviews can be very frustrating. You may even feel angry or defeated. This is normal. Read the reviews through once, then put them aside for a while. If you are given the opportunity to resubmit, do not formulate your responses yet. Return several days later and read the reviews again. You will have a clearer mind then, and you will be less likely to respond angrily or with condescension. Some rejections are valid. Some are due to misunderstanding, which means that you were not clear. The reviewers took the time to read your article. If they did not “get it,” it is your writing.

Sometimes the editorial response highlights the problem and seems to say either “Please fix this and resubmit” or “It’s a long shot, but we’ll re-review it if you want to try—no guarantee though.” Always respond item-by-item to each of the reviewers’ comments in a detailed letter. Be careful with your tone. A negative tone in your responses will work against you. We like to write the response letter before revising the paper. Think through everything you want to do, then revise the paper and show your changes. Always include your coauthors in this process, because they are signing off on what you are resubmitting.

We hope this synopsis is helpful. It took 15 drafts. It could still be better. So, writing is never easy. But what you want to get back from the reviewers is “This is a clearly written, succinct report of X. I have some remaining questions….” No report is perfect. Recall that the reviewers are your helpers, but they cannot help improve your manuscript (or science) if you have not been clear in telling the story, specific in describing what you’ve done, and to the point throughout the paper. Good luck!

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

How to peer review

Author tutorials 

Evaluating the discussion and conclusion

In the Discussion and Conclusion sections, authors should interpret the results, place them in context of previous findings, and explain what they mean for future research, as well as for possible real-life applications. If the author has not made these points as clear as they should be, note this in your review.

Other questions to ask include:

• Does the Discussion fit with the aims of the study stated in the Introduction?
• Are there any alternative interpretations of the data that the authors should have considered in their Discussion?
• Is there any general background that belongs in the Introduction section rather than the Discussion?
• Have the authors adequately compared their findings with the findings of other studies?
• Do the authors present data in the Discussion? All relevant data should be presented in the Results section, although important or interesting results can be summarized as part of the Discussion. For example, a sentence such as “Group B’s one-year survival rate was significantly higher than Group A’s,” is acceptable in the Discussion. But a sentence such as, “Group B’s one-year survival rate (1200 / 2000, 60%) was higher than Group A’s (800 / 2000, 40%) (P ‹ 0.05),” belongs in the Results section.
• Do the authors mention how the study’s results might influence future research?
• Are the limitations of the study noted? If not, what limitations have you found?
• Are the authors’ conclusions supported by their data? Have the authors overstated the importance of their findings?

Pay attention to how the authors use references as you review the rest of the manuscript.

Some issues to watch for include: 

• Are there places where the authors need to cite a reference, but haven’t? (In general, citations are needed for all facts except those that are well-established, common knowledge; that come from the current study; or that are clearly phrased as the authors’ own hypothesis.)
• Do the authors cite all the most relevant previous studies and explain how they relate to the current results? If not, note which references are missing.
• Are the cited studies recent enough to represent current knowledge on the topic?
• Do the authors cite the work of a variety of research groups? This is preferable to mainly citing papers from one or two research groups, especially if one of the most cited groups is one the authors belong to (although it is not always possible in very small fields of study).
• Do the authors cite many review articles? It is better to cite the original studies.
• Are all of the citations helpful to the reader? Note any places where the authors seem to be reviewing literature simply to show the depth of their knowledge, or to increase citations of their own previous work.
• Do the authors cite findings that contradict their own (where they exist), as well as those that support their claims? It is important that the authors provide a well balanced view of previously published work.

Topics covered

Writing a report.

Whether you recommend accepting or rejecting the manuscript, keep in mind that one of your goals is to help the authors improve this and future manuscripts—not to make them give up in despair. Avoid overly negative wording or personal comments, point out the main strengths of the manuscript as well as its weaknesses, and suggest specific ways to fix the problems you identify. Also, avoid making overly brief and direct comments, as these can give your report an unfriendly tone. Reviewers for most journals are anonymous, so if anonymity is important to you, avoid comments that could make your identity obvious to the authors.

If the editor sent specific instructions for the reviewer report, or a form to fill out as part of the review, you should write your report in the requested format. If you received no specific instructions, the reviewer report should be divided into two parts:

• comments to be read only by the editor, and
• comments to be read by both the editor and the authors.

Comments for only the editor:

In this section, give the editor your recommendation for the manuscript and, more importantly, your reasons behind it. These usually have to do with the manuscript’s scientific soundness, novelty, quality, importance, and suitability for the journal. Editors take many factors into consideration when deciding whether a paper is right for their journal so providing evidence or reasoning for your recommendation is extremely helpful.

TIP: Recommendations are usually one of the following: accept manuscript in its current form, publish with minor changes, publish only if major improvements are made, or to reject the paper.

Comments for both the editor and authors:

In this section, write a detailed report reviewing the different parts of the manuscript. Start with the short summary of the manuscript you wrote after your first reading. Then, in a numbered list, explain each of the issues you found that need to be addressed. Divide the list into two sections: major issues and minor issues. First, write about the major issues, including problems with the study’s method or analysis. Next, write about the minor issues, which might include tables or figures that are difficult to read, parts that need more explanation, and suggestions to delete unnecessary text. If you think the English language of the manuscript is not suitable for publication, try to give specific examples so that the authors know what and how to address the problems.

Be as specific as you can about the manuscript’s weaknesses and how to address them. If the manuscript has line numbers, include the page and line number(s) specific to the part of the study you are discussing. This will help both the authors and the editor, who may later need to judge if the authors have fixed the problems in their revised manuscript. For example, instead of, “The explanation of the proposed mechanism is not clear.” You might write, “The explanation of the proposed mechanism should be more detailed. Consider referring to the work of Li and Smith, et al. (2008) and Stein and Burdak, et al. (2010).”

Keep in mind that the authors—and even the editor—may not be native English speakers. Read over your comments after you finish writing them to check that you’ve used clear, simple wording, and that the reasons for your proposed changes are clear.

After the review

After you submit a review you should receive a notification that the review was successfully received. 

• Some journals will inform reviewers if the manuscript was accepted or rejected, while others do not. 
• Some journals send reviewers the comments of other reviewers on the same manuscript along with the decision letter; reading these comments can help you improve your future reviews.

If the authors revise and resubmit the manuscript after review, the editor will often review the changes to decide if the reviewer comments have been fully addressed. 

Sometimes, however, the editor will send the manuscript back to the original reviewers to get their feedback about the acceptability of the revised manuscript. 

• If this happens, focus on if the authors have resolved the problems you pointed out in your first review. 
• Try to avoid raising new problems unless they have to do with the author’s revisions. For example, if you asked the authors to explain their methods more clearly, and can now see problems with the experimental design that were not apparent before, it is still appropriate to mention them.

If the authors decided not to follow one or more of your suggestions, and explained why in their response letter, evaluate their reasons fairly and decide if you agree with their decision. 

• If your suggestion arose from a misunderstanding of the manuscript, check to see if the authors have revised the relevant section to make it clearer or if they have explained a particular problem as a limitation of the study. Be fair. 
• If you still feel strongly that the manuscript should not be published because of a problem that has not been addressed, you should indicate this to the editor and explain why a particular change or addition is necessary.

Tip : Recommendations are usually one of the following: accept manuscript in its current form, publish with minor changes, publish only if major improvements are made, or to reject the paper.

For further support

We hope that with this tutorial you have a clearer idea of how the peer review process works and feel confident in becoming a peer reviewer.

If you feel that you would like some further support with writing, reviewing, and publishing, Springer Nature offer some services which may be of help.

• Nature Research Editing Service offers high quality  English language and scientific editing. During language editing , Editors will improve the English in your manuscript to ensure the meaning is clear and identify problems that require your review. With Scientific Editing experienced development editors will improve the scientific presentation of your research in your manuscript and cover letter, if supplied. They will also provide you with a report containing feedback on the most important issues identified during the edit, as well as journal recommendations.
• Our affiliates American Journal Experts also provide English language editing* as well as other author services that may support you in preparing your manuscript.
• We provide both online and face-to-face training for researchers on all aspects of the manuscript writing process.

* Please note, using an editing service is neither a requirement nor a guarantee of acceptance for publication. 

Test your knowledge

Take the Quiz!

Stay up to date

Here to foster information exchange with the library community

Connect with us on LinkedIn and stay up to date with news and development.

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

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

• © 2024 Springer Nature
• General terms and conditions
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Your Privacy Choices / Manage Cookies
• Accessibility
• Legal notice
• Help us to improve this site, send feedback.

• Chapter Seven: Presenting Your Results

This chapter serves as the culmination of the previous chapters, in that it focuses on how to present the results of one's study, regardless of the choice made among the three methods. Writing in academics has a form and style that you will want to apply not only to report your own research, but also to enhance your skills at reading original research published in academic journals. Beyond the basic academic style of report writing, there are specific, often unwritten assumptions about how quantitative, qualitative, and critical/rhetorical studies should be organized and the information they should contain. This chapter discusses how to present your results in writing, how to write accessibly, how to visualize data, and how to present your results in person.  

• Chapter One: Introduction
• Chapter Two: Understanding the distinctions among research methods
• Chapter Three: Ethical research, writing, and creative work
• Chapter Four: Quantitative Methods (Part 1)
• Chapter Four: Quantitative Methods (Part 2 - Doing Your Study)
• Chapter Four: Quantitative Methods (Part 3 - Making Sense of Your Study)
• Chapter Five: Qualitative Methods (Part 1)
• Chapter Five: Qualitative Data (Part 2)
• Chapter Six: Critical / Rhetorical Methods (Part 1)
• Chapter Six: Critical / Rhetorical Methods (Part 2)

Written Presentation of Results

Once you've gone through the process of doing communication research – using a quantitative, qualitative, or critical/rhetorical methodological approach – the final step is to  communicate  it.

The major style manuals (the APA Manual, the MLA Handbook, and Turabian) are very helpful in documenting the structure of writing a study, and are highly recommended for consultation. But, no matter what style manual you may use, there are some common elements to the structure of an academic communication research paper.

Title Page :

This is simple: Your Paper's Title, Your Name, Your Institutional Affiliation (e.g., University), and the Date, each on separate lines, centered on the page. Try to make your title both descriptive (i.e., it gives the reader an idea what the study is about) and interesting (i.e., it is catchy enough to get one's attention).

For example, the title, "The uncritical idealization of a compensated psychopath character in a popular book series," would not be an inaccurate title for a published study, but it is rather vague and exceedingly boring. That study's author fortunately chose the title, "A boyfriend to die for: Edward Cullen as compensated psychopath in Stephanie Meyer's  Twilight ," which is more precisely descriptive, and much more interesting (Merskin, 2011). The use of the colon in academic titles can help authors accomplish both objectives: a catchy but relevant phrase, followed by a more clear explanation of the article's topic.

In some instances, you might be asked to write an abstract, which is a summary of your paper that can range in length from 75 to 250 words. If it is a published paper, it is useful to include key search terms in this brief description of the paper (the title may already have a few of these terms as well). Although this may be the last thing your write, make it one of the best things you write, because this may be the first thing your audience reads about the paper (and may be the only thing read if it is written badly). Summarize the problem/research question, your methodological approach, your results and conclusions, and the significance of the paper in the abstract.

Quantitative and qualitative studies will most typically use the rest of the section titles noted below. Critical/rhetorical studies will include many of the same steps, but will often have different headings. For example, a critical/rhetorical paper will have an introduction, definition of terms, and literature review, followed by an analysis (often divided into sections by areas of investigation) and ending with a conclusion/implications section. Because critical/rhetorical research is much more descriptive, the subheadings in such a paper are often times not generic subheads like "literature review," but instead descriptive subheadings that apply to the topic at hand, as seen in the schematic below. Because many journals expect the article to follow typical research paper headings of introduction, literature review, methods, results, and discussion, we discuss these sections briefly next.

Introduction:

As you read social scientific journals (see chapter 1 for examples), you will find that they tend to get into the research question quickly and succinctly. Journal articles from the humanities tradition tend to be more descriptive in the introduction. But, in either case, it is good to begin with some kind of brief anecdote that gets the reader engaged in your work and lets the reader understand why this is an interesting topic. From that point, state your research question, define the problem (see Chapter One) with an overview of what we do and don't know, and finally state what you will do, or what you want to find out. The introduction thus builds the case for your topic, and is the beginning of building your argument, as we noted in chapter 1.

By the end of the Introduction, the reader should know what your topic is, why it is a significant communication topic, and why it is necessary that you investigate it (e.g., it could be there is gap in literature, you will conduct valuable exploratory research, or you will provide a new model for solving some professional or social problem).

Literature Review:

The literature review summarizes and organizes the relevant books, articles, and other research in this area. It sets up both quantitative and qualitative studies, showing the need for the study. For critical/rhetorical research, the literature review often incorporates the description of the historical context and heuristic vocabulary, with key terms defined in this section of the paper. For more detail on writing a literature review, see Appendix 1.

The methods of your paper are the processes that govern your research, where the researcher explains what s/he did to solve the problem. As you have seen throughout this book, in communication studies, there are a number of different types of research methods. For example, in quantitative research, one might conduct surveys, experiments, or content analysis. In qualitative research, one might instead use interviews and observations. Critical/rhetorical studies methods are more about the interpretation of texts or the study of popular culture as communication. In creative communication research, the method may be an interpretive performance studies or filmmaking. Other methods used sometimes alone, or in combination with other methods, include legal research, historical research, and political economy research.

In quantitative and qualitative research papers, the methods will be most likely described according to the APA manual standards. At the very least, the methods will include a description of participants, data collection, and data analysis, with specific details on each of these elements. For example, in an experiment, the researcher will describe the number of participants, the materials used, the design of the experiment, the procedure of the experiment, and what statistics will be used to address the hypotheses/research questions.

Critical/rhetorical researchers rarely have a specific section called "methods," as opposed to quantitative and qualitative researchers, but rather demonstrate the method they use for analysis throughout the writing of their piece.

Helping your reader understand the methods you used for your study is important not only for your own study's credibility, but also for possible replication of your study by other researchers. A good guideline to keep in mind is  transparency . You want to be as clear as possible in describing the decisions you made in designing your study, gathering and analyzing your data so that the reader can retrace your steps and understand how you came to the conclusions you formed. A research study can be very good, but if it is not clearly described so that others can see how the results were determined or obtained, then the quality of the study and its potential contributions are lost.

After you completed your study, your findings will be listed in the results section. Particularly in a quantitative study, the results section is for revisiting your hypotheses and reporting whether or not your results supported them, and the statistical significance of the results. Whether your study supported or contradicted your hypotheses, it's always helpful to fully report what your results were. The researcher usually organizes the results of his/her results section by research question or hypothesis, stating the results for each one, using statistics to show how the research question or hypothesis was answered in the study.

The qualitative results section also may be organized by research question, but usually is organized by themes which emerged from the data collected. The researcher provides rich details from her/his observations and interviews, with detailed quotations provided to illustrate the themes identified. Sometimes the results section is combined with the discussion section.

Critical/rhetorical researchers would include their analysis often with different subheadings in what would be considered a "results" section, yet not labeled specifically this way.

Discussion:

In the discussion section, the researcher gives an appraisal of the results. Here is where the researcher considers the results, particularly in light of the literature review, and explains what the findings mean. If the results confirmed or corresponded with the findings of other literature, then that should be stated. If the results didn't support the findings of previous studies, then the researcher should develop an explanation of why the study turned out this way. Sometimes, this section is called a "conclusion" by researchers.

References:

In this section, all of the literature cited in the text should have full references in alphabetical order. Appendices: Appendix material includes items like questionnaires used in the study, photographs, documents, etc. An alphabetical letter is assigned for each piece (e.g. Appendix A, Appendix B), with a second line of title describing what the appendix contains (e.g. Participant Informed Consent, or  New York Times  Speech Coverage). They should be organized consistently with the order in which they are referenced in the text of the paper. The page numbers for appendices are consecutive with the paper and reference list.

Tables/Figures:

Tables and figures are referenced in the text, but included at the end of the study and numbered consecutively. (Check with your professor; some like to have tables and figures inserted within the paper's main text.) Tables generally are data in a table format, whereas figures are diagrams (such as a pie chart) and drawings (such as a flow chart).

Accessible Writing

As you may have noticed, academic writing does have a language (e.g., words like heuristic vocabulary and hypotheses) and style (e.g., literature reviews) all its own. It is important to engage in that language and style, and understand how to use it to  communicate effectively in an academic context . Yet, it is also important to remember that your analyses and findings should also be written to be accessible. Writers should avoid excessive jargon, or—even worse—deploying jargon to mask an incomplete understanding of a topic.

The scourge of excessive jargon in academic writing was the target of a famous hoax in 1996. A New York University physics professor submitted an article, " Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity ," to a special issue of the academic journal  Social Text  devoted to science and postmodernism. The article was designed to point out how dense academic jargon can sometimes mask sloppy thinking. As the professor, Alan Sokal, had expected, the article was published. One sample sentence from the article reads:

It has thus become increasingly apparent that physical "reality", no less than social "reality", is at bottom a social and linguistic construct; that scientific "knowledge", far from being objective, reflects and encodes the dominant ideologies and power relations of the culture that produced it; that the truth claims of science are inherently theory-laden and self-referential; and consequently, that the discourse of the scientific community, for all its undeniable value, cannot assert a privileged epistemological status with respect to counter-hegemonic narratives emanating from dissident or marginalized communities. (Sokal, 1996. pp. 217-218)

According to the journal's editor, about six reviewers had read the article but didn't suspect that it was phony. A public debate ensued after Sokal revealed his hoax. Sokal said he worried that jargon and intellectual fads cause academics to lose contact with the real world and "undermine the prospect for progressive social critique" ( Scott, 1996 ). The APA Manual recommends to avoid using technical vocabulary where it is not needed or relevant or if the technical language is overused, thus becoming jargon. In short, the APA argues that "scientific jargon...grates on the reader, encumbers the communication of information, and wastes space" (American Psychological Association, 2010, p. 68).

Data Visualization

Images and words have long existed on the printed page of manuscripts, yet, until recently, relatively few researchers possessed the resources to effectively combine images combined with words (Tufte, 1990, 1983). Communication scholars are only now becoming aware of this dimension in research as computer technologies have made it possible for many people to produce and publish multimedia presentations.

Although visuals may seem to be anathema to the primacy of the written word in research, they are a legitimate way, and at times the best way, to present ideas. Visual scholar Lester Faigley et al. (2004) explains how data visualizations have become part of our daily lives:

Visualizations can shed light on research as well. London-based David McCandless specializes in visualizing interesting research questions, or in his words "the questions I wanted answering" (2009, p. 7). His images include a graph of the  peak times of the year for breakups  (based on Facebook status updates), a  radiation dosage chart , and some  experiments with the Google Ngram Viewer , which charts the appearance of keywords in millions of books over hundreds of years.

The  public domain image  below creatively maps U.S. Census data of the outflow of people from California to other states between 1995 and 2000.

Visualizing one's research is possible in multiple ways. A simple technology, for example, is to enter data into a spreadsheet such as Excel, and select  Charts  or  SmartArt  to generate graphics. A number of free web tools can also transform raw data into useful charts and graphs.  Many Eyes , an open source data visualization tool (sponsored by IBM Research), says its goal "is to 'democratize' visualization and to enable a new social kind of data analysis" (IBM, 2011). Another tool,  Soundslides , enables users to import images and audio to create a photographic slideshow, while the program handles all of the background code. Other tools, often open source and free, can help visual academic research into interactive maps; interactive, image-based timelines; interactive charts; and simple 2-D and 3-D animations. Adobe Creative Suite (which includes popular software like Photoshop) is available on most computers at universities, but open source alternatives exist as well.  Gimp  is comparable to Photoshop, and it is free and relatively easy to use.

One online performance studies journal,  Liminalities , is an excellent example of how "research" can be more than just printed words. In each issue, traditional academic essays and book reviews are often supported photographs, while other parts of an issue can include video, audio, and multimedia contributions. The journal, founded in 2005, treats performance itself as a methodology, and accepts contribution in html, mp3, Quicktime, and Flash formats.

For communication researchers, there is also a vast array of visual digital archives available online. Many of these archives are located at colleges and universities around the world, where digital librarians are spearheading a massive effort to make information—print, audio, visual, and graphic—available to the public as part of a global information commons. For example, the University of Iowa has a considerable digital archive including historical photos documenting American railroads and a database of images related to geoscience. The University of Northern Iowa has a growing Special Collections Unit that includes digital images of every UNI Yearbook between 1905 and 1923 and audio files of UNI jazz band performances. Researchers at he University of Michigan developed  OAIster , a rich database that has joined thousands of digital archives in one searchable interface. Indeed, virtually every academic library is now digitizing all types of media, not just texts, and making them available for public viewing and, when possible, for use in presenting research. In addition to academic collections, the  Library of Congress  and the  National Archives  offer an ever-expanding range of downloadable media; commercial, user-generated databases such as Flickr, Buzznet, YouTube and Google Video offer a rich resource of images that are often free of copyright constraints (see Chapter 3 about Creative Commons licenses) and nonprofit endeavors, such as the  Internet Archive , contain a formidable collection of moving images, still photographs, audio files (including concert recordings), and open source software.

Presenting your Work in Person

As Communication students, it's expected that you are not only able to communicate your research project in written form but also in person.

Before you do any oral presentation, it's good to have a brief "pitch" ready for anyone who asks you about your research. The pitch is routine in Hollywood: a screenwriter has just a few minutes to present an idea to a producer. Although your pitch will be more sophisticated than, say, " Snakes on a Plane " (which unfortunately was made into a movie), you should in just a few lines be able to explain the gist of your research to anyone who asks. Developing this concise description, you will have some practice in distilling what might be a complicated topic into one others can quickly grasp.

Oral presentation

In most oral presentations of research, whether at the end of a semester, or at a research symposium or conference, you will likely have just 10 to 20 minutes. This is probably not enough time to read the entire paper aloud, which is not what you should do anyway if you want people to really listen (although, unfortunately some make this mistake). Instead, the point of the presentation should be to present your research in an interesting manner so the listeners will want to read the whole thing. In the presentation, spend the least amount of time on the literature review (a very brief summary will suffice) and the most on your own original contribution. In fact, you may tell your audience that you are only presenting on one portion of the paper, and that you would be happy to talk more about your research and findings in the question and answer session that typically follows. Consider your presentation the beginning of a dialogue between you and the audience. Your tone shouldn't be "I have found everything important there is to find, and I will cram as much as I can into this presentation," but instead "I found some things you will find interesting, but I realize there is more to find."

Turabian (2007) has a helpful chapter on presenting research. Most important, she emphasizes, is to remember that your audience members are listeners, not readers. Thus, recall the lessons on speech making in your college oral communication class. Give an introduction, tell them what the problem is, and map out what you will present to them. Organize your findings into a few points, and don't get bogged down in minutiae. (The minutiae are for readers to find if they wish, not for listeners to struggle through.) PowerPoint slides are acceptable, but don't read them. Instead, create an outline of a few main points, and practice your presentation.

Turabian  suggests an introduction of not more than three minutes, which should include these elements:

• The research topic you will address (not more than a minute).
• Your research question (30 seconds or less)
• An answer to "so what?" – explaining the relevance of your research (30 seconds)
• Your claim, or argument (30 seconds or less)
• The map of your presentation structure (30 seconds or less)

As Turabian (2007) suggests, "Rehearse your introduction, not only to get it right, but to be able to look your audience in the eye as you give it. You can look down at notes later" (p. 125).

Poster presentation

In some symposiums and conferences, you may be asked to present at a "poster" session. Instead of presenting on a panel of 4-5 people to an audience, a poster presenter is with others in a large hall or room, and talks one-on-one with visitors who look at the visual poster display of the research. As in an oral presentation, a poster highlights just the main point of the paper. Then, if visitors have questions, the author can informally discuss her/his findings.

To attract attention, poster presentations need to be nicely designed, or in the words of an advertising professor who schedules poster sessions at conferences, "be big, bold, and brief" ( Broyles , 2011). Large type (at least 18 pt.), graphics, tables, and photos are recommended.

A poster presentation session at a conference, by David Eppstein (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 ( www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0 )], via Wikimedia Commons]

The Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC) has a  template for making an effective poster presentation . Many universities, copy shops, and Internet services also have large-scale printers, to print full-color research poster designs that can be rolled up and transported in a tube.

Judging Others' Research

After taking this course, you should have a basic knowledge of research methods. There will still be some things that may mystify you as a reader of other's research. For example, you may not be able to interpret the coefficients for statistical significance, or make sense of a complex structural equation. Some specialized vocabulary may still be difficult.

But, you should understand how to critically review research. For example, imagine you have been asked to do a blind (i.e., the author's identity is concealed) "peer review" of communication research for acceptance to a conference, or publication in an academic journal. For most  conferences  and  journals , submissions are made online, where editors can manage the flow and assign reviews to papers. The evaluations reviewers make are based on the same things that we have covered in this book. For example, the conference for the AEJMC ask reviewers to consider (on a five-point scale, from Excellent to Poor) a number of familiar research dimensions, including the paper's clarity of purpose, literature review, clarity of research method, appropriateness of research method, evidence presented clearly, evidence supportive of conclusions, general writing and organization, and the significance of the contribution to the field.

Beyond academia, it is likely you will more frequently apply the lessons of research methods as a critical consumer of news, politics, and everyday life. Just because some expert cites a number or presents a conclusion doesn't mean it's automatically true. John Allen Paulos, in his book  A Mathematician reads the newspaper , suggests some basic questions we can ask. "If statistics were presented, how were they obtained? How confident can we be of them? Were they derived from a random sample or from a collection of anecdotes? Does the correlation suggest a causal relationship, or is it merely a coincidence?" (1997, p. 201).

Through the study of research methods, we have begun to build a critical vocabulary and understanding to ask good questions when others present "knowledge." For example, if Candidate X won a straw poll in Iowa, does that mean she'll get her party's nomination? If Candidate Y wins an open primary in New Hampshire, does that mean he'll be the next president? If Candidate Z sheds a tear, does it matter what the context is, or whether that candidate is a man or a woman? What we learn in research methods about validity, reliability, sampling, variables, research participants, epistemology, grounded theory, and rhetoric, we can consider whether the "knowledge" that is presented in the news is a verifiable fact, a sound argument, or just conjecture.

American Psychological Association (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Broyles, S. (2011). "About poster sessions." AEJMC.  http://www.aejmc.org/home/2013/01/about-poster-sessions/ .

Faigley, L., George, D., Palchik, A., Selfe, C. (2004).  Picturing texts . New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

IBM (2011). Overview of Many Eyes.  http://www.research.ibm.com/social/projects_manyeyes.shtml .

McCandless, D. (2009).  The visual miscellaneum . New York: Collins Design.

Merskin, D. (2011). A boyfriend to die for: Edward Cullen as compensated psychopath in Stephanie Meyer's  Twilight. Journal of Communication Inquiry  35: 157-178. doi:10.1177/0196859911402992

Paulos, J. A. (1997).  A mathematician reads the newspaper . New York: Anchor.

Scott, J. (1996, May 18). Postmodern gravity deconstructed, slyly.  New York Times , http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/11/15/specials/sokal-text.html .

Sokal, A. (1996). Transgressing the boundaries: towards a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity.  Social Text  46/47, 217-252.

Tufte, E. R. (1990).  Envisioning information . Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.

Tufte, E. R. (1983).  The visual display of quantitative information . Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.

Turabian, Kate L. (2007).  A manual for writers of research papers, theses, and dissertations: Chicago style guide for students and researchers  (7th ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

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

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER FEATURE
• 15 May 2024

I’m worried I’ve been contacted by a predatory publisher — how do I find out?

• Nikki Forrester 0

Nikki Forrester is a science journalist based in Davis, West Virginia.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Illustration: David Parkins

The problem

Dear Nature ,

I’m a microbial ecologist in South Africa. I recently received a flattering e-mail from a publisher, inviting me to submit a paper to one of its journals on a topic that’s tangentially related to my field of study. I’m concerned that the journal is predatory, but I’m not sure how to check. The journal’s website looks professional, and the editorial board features some familiar researchers in my field. However, the review process seems unusually short, and the publisher emphasized its processing fees in the e-mail. How do I determine whether this journal is predatory or not? — Sincerely, a suspicious ecologist

Nature reached out to two researchers for advice. Predatory journals claim to be legitimate scholarly publications, but exploit the open-access publication model to deceive authors into paying them a fee. These publishers often lie about the journal’s impact factor, misrepresent their editorial board and falsely claim that they provide a peer-review process 1 .

Predatory journals: no definition, no defence

One of the first things you can do to determine whether a journal is predatory or not is to evaluate the e-mail invitation critically, which it seems you’ve already done. “Predatory journals approach so many of us here in Africa. Every day, I get like 20 e-mails asking me to publish something,” says Alexander Kwarteng, a microbiologist at Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology in Kumasi, Ghana. For Kwarteng, an emphasis on publication fees in the e-mail is a red flag. “Most predatory journals like talking about money. They will ask you to send them US$50 or $100 to publish your paper in two weeks.”

“Some journals are obviously predatory, because the topic is fully off from your field of study,” says Jeroen Groeneveld, a palaeoceanographer at the National Taiwan University in Taipei. “Also, these e-mails are often extremely flattering. They’ll include phrases like ‘dearest professor’ and ‘your extremely high standing in the scientific community’. Those are red flags for me.”

Looking for typos, grammatical errors and whether the timestamp of the e-mail matches the standard working hours for the publisher’s purported location can also help to indicate whether a journal is predatory or not, write Susan Elmore and Eleanor Weston in a 2020 publication on how to avoid predatory journals 1 . The e-mail you received seems to have many of these characteristics, suggesting that it might be from a predatory publisher.

Share your own career problems anonymously

After closely reviewing the e-mail, the researchers we spoke to also recommend looking at the journal’s website to evaluate its credibility. For instance, does the journal have clear guidelines for its peer-review process and timeline? “A journal that promises to accept your manuscript within a week’s time for money is, for me, predatory, as this is simply not possible,” says Groeneveld, who notes that a thorough peer-review and editing process take weeks, if not months or even a year.

Kwarteng also looks at the journal’s citation index, address and telephone numbers. “If a journal says it’s coming from the United States, but the telephone number is from India, that doesn’t make sense,” he says. He also checks out the members of the editorial team and tries to follow the links in their biographies. “Sometimes you click a link that doesn’t go anywhere. That tells me they’re probably a dangerous publisher.” Consider e-mailing the people included on the journal’s editorial board to ask them about the journal. If it turns out to be predatory, then you’ve helped inform these researchers that their information is probably being used deceitfully.

Beyond exploring the website, an online search can provide insights into whether a journal is predatory or not. Groeneveld often searches the journal name with the keyword ‘predatory’ to see what pops up. He also checks Beall’s list, a compilation of potential predatory journals and publishers originally created by librarian Jeffrey Beall, who at the time was employed by the University of Colorado Denver.

Hundreds of ‘predatory’ journals indexed on leading scholarly database

In their paper, Elmore and Weston suggest numerous free resources that can help researchers to identify predatory journals. Examples include databases curated by the Directory for Open Access Journals and SCImago Journal Rank, and guidance provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics. They also recommend using a guide for checking journal quality on the non-profit website thinkchecksubmit.org.

On the basis of these criteria, Nature reviewed the e-mail received by the suspicious ecologist and found that it probably is from a predatory publisher.

Kwarteng and Groeneveld both noted that working out whether a journal is predatory or not can be particularly challenging for early-career researchers, who are often not very familiar with scientific publishers. In those cases, it’s best to reach out to more experienced colleagues for help.

In 2021, a graduate student in Kwarteng’s lab was tricked into publishing their work in a predatory journal. Despite numerous requests for the journal to withdraw the publication, it refuses to do so and continues to ask Kwarteng for money. “I’ve learnt a hard lesson,” says Kwarteng. “We need to continuously educate members of the lab in how to deal with some of these predatory publishers. The truth is, they’re all over the place.”

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01437-2

This is part of a series in Nature in which we share advice on career issues faced by readers. Have a problem? E-mail us at [email protected]

Elmore, S. A. & Weston, E. H. Toxicol. Pathol. 48 , 607–610 (2020).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Download references

Related Articles

Predatory journals entrap unsuspecting scientists. Here’s how universities can support researchers

How I fled bombed Aleppo to continue my career in science

Career Feature 08 MAY 24

Illuminating ‘the ugly side of science’: fresh incentives for reporting negative results

Hunger on campus: why US PhD students are fighting over food

Career Feature 03 MAY 24

My PI yelled at me and I’m devastated. What do I do?

Career Feature 02 MAY 24

Mount Etna’s spectacular smoke rings and more — April’s best science images

News 03 MAY 24

Plagiarism in peer-review reports could be the ‘tip of the iceberg’

Nature Index 01 MAY 24

Postdoc in CRISPR Meta-Analytics and AI for Therapeutic Target Discovery and Priotisation (OT Grant)

APPLICATION CLOSING DATE: 14/06/2024 Human Technopole (HT) is a new interdisciplinary life science research institute created and supported by the...

Human Technopole

Research Associate - Metabolism

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Postdoc Fellowships

Train with world-renowned cancer researchers at NIH? Consider joining the Center for Cancer Research (CCR) at the National Cancer Institute

Bethesda, Maryland

NIH National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Faculty Recruitment, Westlake University School of Medicine

Faculty positions are open at four distinct ranks: Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Full Professor, and Chair Professor.

Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

Westlake University

PhD/master's Candidate

PhD/master's Candidate    Graduate School of Frontier Science Initiative, Kanazawa University is seeking candidates for PhD and master's students i...

Kanazawa University

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

Quick links

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