Writing a paper

2011

Helga M. Ögmundsdóttir

From draft to paper

• M R Aims I Beginning of D Conclusions D Abstract

IMRAD

CHOOSE A JOURNAL AND READ THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS CAREFULLY

Abstract

• Follows IMRAD, sometimes “structured abstract”

• 100 - 200 – 250 words! Cut in PubMed

• The part of the paper that everybody reads first, most people will read and some (many?!) will never read further

• Write last ( see later!)

Title page Title : Short – Concise - Descriptive

Authors1: With or without titles; usually full names: first name-last name –

FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS OF THE JOURNAL1Affiliations/addresses

Corresponding author:For correspondence with the Editor and to whom reprint requests should be sent

Running title

Authors (1)

• Who should be authors?– All those who really contributed to the work– All authors have to have read the manuscript

and aggreed to its contents. They all bear equal responsibility for the data. Some journals require declaration of contribution.

– Thanks in the acknowledgements to all those who contributed to some specific part but do not bear responsibility for the whole paper

Authors (2)• Which order?

– First: The person who did most of the actual work, e.g. Ph.D. Student

– Sometimes two authors have contributed equally: This has to be mentioned (in footnote)

– Last: The Principal investigator, main author/ “corresponding author”, supervisor of doctoral project

– Others: No specific rule – “importance”, alphabetical order ...

• Different traditions

Addresses• Addresses of all authors: can be > 1 per

person: – Important for assessments of institutions – Author’s address when the work was done: – New address added underneath as: “Current

address”

• Bottom of title page: “corresponding author” with all requested information: full address, e-mail, FAX, phone

Style – a few “do’s and don’ts”• Never translate• Avoid first-person pronoun (not everybody agrees with

this!) – “let the data speak”• Don’t mix singulars and plurals• Never start a sentence with a number• Write “one ...” up to 11; 6% (not 6 %); 5 mg (not 5mg);

2.5 (not 2,5)• Use “significance” only for statistical significance – If a

difference is not statistically signficant it is not a difference!

• Don’t mix UK and US spelling – use as demanded by the journal, be consistent

• Gender (not sex)

Introduction1. Short description of the topic

2. Review of previous knowledge• ? How thorough • References: The first, the best (> 1), the most

recent• Introduce all aspects as necessary for

understanding

3. Previous work by the authors in the area

4. Questions that are unanswered

5. Aims of the study

Material(s) and methods (1)• Concise text, always past tense• Mention all relevant permissions with reference

numbers, whether informed consent was obtained, etc.

• Suppliers of all materials and equipment + abbr. address (e.g. Sigma-Aldrich, St.Louis, USA; a kind gift from Prof. Smith) when first mentioned, then name only

• Logical order: – Material (population, animals, cells, bacteria ...)– Selection criteria, controls, experimental design ...– Experimental methods, assays, ...– Analysis and statistics

Material and methods (2)

• Sufficient detail: The reader should be able to 1) judge the validity of the data; 2) repeat the experiments

• Often shortened:– “using our previously published method” –

“using the method of Smith et al.” .... “Briefly, ...”: But still sufficient for the reader to judge the data and whether the method might be useful for him/her.

Results

• Text + tables and figures

• Divided into chapters by concise, descriptive subheadings (follow instructions of the journal)

• Only results + sufficient explanation but NOT interpretation, this belongs in the “Discussion”

• The text should guide the reader through tables/figures. Some data may only be presented in the text

• Write like a lecture explaining slides

Discussion

1. Summary of the main findings – NOT raw data or figures

2. “Technical notes”, limitations, unexpected results ...

3. Interpretation and comparison with previously published work

4. A bit of speculation – not too wild5. Conclusions – implications – next steps

References

• Follow the instructions of the journal exactly!

Tables and figures• Separate from text in the manuscript

– Text or table/figure?– Table or figure?– How to arrange the table– What type of graph?

• Table: Title above table, explanations in footnote if needed

• Figure: Title and legend under the figure• Photographs: Digital, remember scale bar• Colour: If needed to convey the message:

expensive!

Table 3. The present study population

Number of patients in group*

Age Male: Female

Daily smokers

Number of teeth

Group I 76 73.4 ± 6.33 years(65-93)

1:1.4 11% >20(25.1 ± 2.4)

Group II 38 73.6 ± 6.7 years(65-90)

1:1.4 11% 11-20(16.7 ± 2.9)

Group III 32 74.34 ± 6.5 years(65-90)

1:1.9 16% 1-10(5.7 ± 2.4)

Group IV 51 76.7 ± 6.8 years(65-92)

1:2 14.8% 0

*total number of patients=197

Abstract• Follow instructions on length (150 – 250

words)• Very brief introduction• Material and methods listed • Results providing real data, figures, statistics • Conclusions: The most important sentence

of the whole paper: Not too much - not too little.

• Keywords

Submitting the paper• Most journals have electronic submission

• Usually require e-mail addresses for all authors

• Submission letter (often no longer required)– Dear Prof. Bloggs, We should be pleased if you

would consider our enclosed manuscript “...” for publication in The Journal of Blue Sky Research. In this paper we describe our novel findings on .....This manuscript is not being considered elsewhere”

Comments from the Editor• Dear Dr. Bladottir, Thank you for submitting your

manuscript “..” to The Journal of ... Your paper has now been reviewed by 2 – 3 independent reviewers ..– We are pleased to inform you that --- accepted as

submitted: Extremely rare– We regret to inform you that your MS is not suitable for

publication in its present form… without (major) revision, see enclosed comments from the reviewers: Good news!

– We regret to inform you that your MS is not acceptable for publication in .. This decision is based on the attached comments of the reviewers: Common! Learn from it and try the next journal

Resubmission• Keep deadline• In accompanying letter: list all comments from the

reviewers and how you have responded to them and amended the paper– Reviewer 1

• 1. “The introduction is too long”: The introduction has been shortened

• 2. “It is impossible to draw valid conclusions on x without measuring y”: Measurements of y have now been performed and the results are presented on p. q and in Table r. OR

• Based on our experience of studying x (ref. to previous work) we do not agree that measuring y adds significantly to the interpretation of the data and have therefore not added these measurements

Proofs

• Keep the tight deadline!• Read VERY carefully• Answer all queries• Use standard proofreading marks (usually

supplied by the publisher)

---------------------------------------------------------• Sign copyright form• Order reprints

From: Fink PJ. Dos and don’ts for writing a scientific manuscript. AAI Newsletter, Feb 2010

Kendall P: Publish lika a pro. Nature 2010; 467:873

Heimaverkefni

• Útdráttur sem er settur fram með millifrásögnum. Stytta í 200 orð.

• Fyrir neðan er lítil setning sem á að leiðrétta yfir á breska ensku.

• Fáum 2 vikur