The ‘recipe’ on how to write scientific papers

Jacob Carstensen, Aarhus University

Communicating Science

Science is a shared form of knowledge inseparable from the written or spoken word.

The ability to write and speak effectively will determine, in no uncertain terms, the perceived importance and validity of your work.

Writing can be learned through hard work, patience, and a willingness to learn from others.

Paraphrased from Montgomery (2003) Communicating Science

| 3

Academic publishingThe publishing cycle

Solicit & manage

submissions

30-60% rejected by

> 13,000editors

ManagePeer Review

557,000+ reviewers

Edit &prepare

365,000articles

accepted

Production

12.6 million

articles available

Publish, Disseminate &

Archive

>700 milliondownloads by

>11 millionresearchers in>120 countries!

January 2015

| 4

Choosing the right journalBest practices

Aim to reach the intended audience for your work Choose only one journal, as simultaneous submissions are prohibited Supervisor and colleagues can provide good suggestions Journal Finder Tool: http://journalfinder.elsevier.com/ (shown on next slide) Shortlist a handful of candidate journals, and investigate them:

• Aims & Scope• Article types • Readership • Current hot topics• Review speed• Publication speed

Articles in your reference list will usually lead you directly to the right journals.

| 5

Full articles• Substantial, complete and

comprehensive pieces of researchIs my message sufficient for a full article?

Letters or short communications• Quick and early communications

Are my results so thrilling that they should be shown as soon as possible?

Review papers• Summaries of recent

developments on a specific topic• Often submitted by invitation

Planning your articleTypes of manuscripts

Your supervisor or colleagues are also good sources for advice on manuscript types.

2 year IF calculation

| 6

Preparing your manuscript Read Guide for Authors

Find it on the journal homepage of the publisher Keep to the Guide for Authors in your manuscript It will save you time

| 7

Manuscript language - Why is language important? Poor language quality can delay or block publication of work Proper English should be used throughout the manuscript Proper English is important so editors and reviewers can understand

the work Use short, concise sentences, correct tenses, and correct grammar Refer to the journal’s Guide for Authors for specifications Have a native English speaker check your manuscript or use a

language editing service Check the spelling throughout

Do publishers correct language?

No! It is the author’s responsibility...

...but resourcesare available

| 8

General structure of a research article

Title Abstract Keywords

Introduction Methods Results and Discussion

Conclusion Acknowledgements References Supporting materials

Play an important role in allowing the article to be easily found, easily indexed, and advertised to potential readers.

Present your work and convey the main messages and findings effectively. Reader’s time is not unlimited. Make your article as concise as possible.

Artificial groupings and the order can change. Some journals request the Discussion section to be combined with the Conclusion or Results. There are also different arrangements of the order (e.g., Methods put after R & D…). Read the Guide for Authors for the specific criteria of your target journal.

| 9

Attract reader’s attention Contain fewest possible words Adequately describe content Are informative but concise Identify main issue Do not use technical jargon and rarely-used abbreviations Colons, question marks, humour etc improve citations!

Effective manuscript titles (‘catchy title’)

Editors and reviewers do not like titles that make no sense or fail to represent the subject matter adequately. Additionally, if the title is not accurate, the appropriate audience may not read your paper.

| 10

Authorship: Do’s and don’ts

First Author: Conducts and/or supervises the data

analysis and the proper presentation and interpretation of the results

Puts paper together and submits the paper to journal

Co-Author(s): Makes intellectual contributions to the

data analysis and contributes to data interpretation

Reviews each paper draft Must be able to present the results,

defend the implications and discuss study limitations

General principles for who is listed first:

Ghost Authors: Leaving out authors who should

be included

Scientific Writers and Gift Authors: Including authors when they did

not contribute significantly

Abuses to be avoided:

Co-author vs Acknowledgement?

Vancouver Protocol

| 11

Keywords

Article title Keywords“An experimental study on evacuated tube solar collector using supercritical CO2”

Solar collector; supercritical CO2; solar energy; solar thermal utilization

Are the labels of the manuscript Are used by indexing and abstracting services Should be specific Should use only established abbreviations (e.g. DNA) No need to repeat words in the title

Check the Guide for Authors for specifics on which keywords should be used.

| 12

Summarize the problem, methods, results, and conclusions in a single paragraph (no paragraph breaks!)

Make it interesting and understandable Make it accurate and specific

A clear abstract will strongly influence whether or not the reader will continue reading your paper

Keep it as brief as possible Acts as an advertisement for your article since it is freely available via

online searching and indexing It may be the only part of the paper that is read!.

Abstract

Take the time to write the abstract very carefully. Many authors write the abstract last so that it accurately reflects the content of the paper.

| 13

The process of writing – building the article

Title, Abstract, and Keywords

Figures/Tables (your data)

Conclusion Introduction

Methods Results Discussion

| 14

• Provide a brief context/background to the readers

• Address the problem• Identify the solutions and limitations• Identify what the work is trying to achieve• Provide a perspective consistent with the

nature of the journal• Give Aim(s), Objectives & Hypotheses

Introduction (what is to be done and why)

Write a unique introduction for every article. DO NOT reuse introductions.

| 15

Describe how the problem was studied

Include detailed information

Do not describe previously published procedures, rather refer to them and cite them fully

Identify the equipment and materials used

Methods (what was done and how)

| 16

Methods – ethics committee approval

Experiments on humans or animals must follow applicable ethics standards

Approval of the local ethics committee is required and should be specified in the manuscript, covering letter, or the online submission system

Editors can make their own decisions on ethics

| 17

Include only data of primary importance

Use sub-headings to keep results of the same type together

Be clear and easy to understand Highlight the main findings

Feature unexpected findings

Provide statistical analysis

Include illustrations and figures

Results (what was found by you)

| 18

Interpretation of results

Most important section

Make the discussion correspond to the results and complement them

Compare published results with your own

Discussion (what it means, compare & contrast, the ‘so what’ and ‘what if’ questions)

Be careful not to use the following:- Statements that go beyond what the results can support- Non-specific expressions- New terms not already defined or mentioned in your paper- Speculations on possible interpretations based on imagination (but hypothesis generation is OK)

| 19

Conclusion (the main findings) Be clear - help the reviewers, editors and readers judge your work

and its impact Provide justification for your work e.g. indicating uses, extensions, or

applications of the work. Do not just repeat the Abstract here. The Abstract and Conclusion

serve different purposes, although some of the same messages may be mentioned.

Don’t list the experimental results here – trivial restatements of your results are unacceptable in this section.

No need to cite references here. Explain how your work advances the present state of knowledge Suggest future experiments and point out any relevant experiments

that may already be underway.

| 20

Acknowledgements

Advisors Financial supporters and funders Proof readers and typists Suppliers who may have donated materials Referees if they have been helpful!

| 21

References

Do not use too many references Always ensure you have fully absorbed the

material you are referencing Avoid excessive self citations Avoid excessive citations of publications from

the same region or institute Conform strictly to the style given in the

Guide for Authors Use a reference management software

You can get help from Mendeley (www.mendeley.com), a free reference manager and academic social network.

The Mendeley Reference Manager generates citations and bibliographies in Word, OpenOffice, and LaTeX.

| 22

Prepare a Cover LetterYour chance to address the Editor directly

“Sell” your work - WHY did you submit the manuscript to THIS journal?

Do not summarize your manuscript, or repeat the abstract

Mention special requirements, e.g. if you do not wish your manuscript to be reviewed by certain reviewers

Declare whether the current manuscript is based on previously-published (conference) paper(s) and how it has been (significantly) extended/altered

Although most editors will not reject a manuscript only because the cover letter is bad, a good cover letter may accelerate the editorial process of your paper

| 23

Your suggestions may help the Editor to pass your manuscript to the review stage more efficiently

The reviewers should be widely international. They should not be your supervisor, direct colleagues at the same institute or close friends.

Give an institutional email address for the reviewer if possible

Generally you are requested to provide 3-6 potential reviewers. Check the Guide for Authors

Suggest potential reviewers (& mention conflicts!)

The formalia of writing scientific articles

Lessons from a gifted writer

The do’s and don’ts• Avoid focus• Avoid originality and personality• Write long contributions• Remove implications and speculations• Leave out illustrations• Omit necessary steps of reasoning• Use many abbreviations and specialised terms• Suppress humour and flowery language• Degrade biology to statistics• Quote numerous papers for trivial statements

The do’s and don’ts• Avoid focus– Specifically formulate research questions and hypotheses

The do’s and don’ts• Avoid originality and personality

– Do not repeat what others have done– Think of the novelty of the study– What can other scientists learn from the manuscript?– Do not make your manuscript to case-study specific: Is

this study relevant to scientists in other parts of the world?

– Your excitement about the results should shine through – you simply must tell the world about these important results

So what?

The do’s and don’ts• Write long contributions– No need to repeat methods described by others– Details can be important, but make use of Supplementary

Information to the largest extent possible to keep focus and prevent the reader from falling asleep

– Avoid verbosity, e.g. ”It has been shown by numerous studies that the depth limit of eelgrass is regulated by light conditions (e.g. ref1, ref2)”, which could be shortened as ”Eelgrass depth limit is regulated by light conditions (e.g. ref1, ref2)”.

– Avoid ”weaving” and be direct/focused

The do’s and don’ts• Remove implications and speculations

– Other scientists are generally not interested in your data – they want to learn from your study

– Advancing science means proposing new ideas, thoughtful speculation and providing sufficient support for these, i.e. your discussion should link to the results

Duarte et al. (2009): Return to Neverland: …

The do’s and don’ts• Leave out illustrations– A figure can say more than a thousand words– Make a conceptual figure for your study, even if you are

not going to use it in the manuscript. It is often good for structuring your thoughts

Duarte et al. (2009): Return to Neverland: …

The do’s and don’ts• Omit necessary steps of reasoning

– Do not jump to conclusions such as starting a discussion with ”Our results clearly demonstrate ……”, unless you use it as an intro to a more elaborate discussion by adding ” ….. , which we will substantiate in the following”

– Structure the discussion around the research questions and start by elaborating all possible explanations from our current knowledge, followed by a narrowing of the plausible explanations

– Remember that you need to convince skeptical reviewers (first) and readers (second)

The do’s and don’ts• Use many abbreviations and specialised terms

– Introduce all abbreviations and explain specialised terms that readers are not expected to know

– Know your readers– Use abbreviations only for terms that are repeated

frequently, i.e. do not use abbreviations for terms that are used once in the introduction and twice in the discussion

The do’s and don’ts• Suppress humour and flowery language

– You are a storyteller– Be prolific in your wording, i.e. do not use the same

restricted vocabulary again and again

Carstensen et al. (2011): Connecting the dots: …

The do’s and don’ts• Degrade biology to statistics

– It is the natural science research questions that should guide the statistics and not vice versa

– Correlations are descriptive but not the same as causality– Complex multivariate methods should not be used to

hide a lack of understanding of the underlying structures in data, i.e. you have to understand and partition sources of variation before examining putative cause-effect relationships

– Formulate your hypotheses and expectations to data based on research questions

– ”If you torture the data long enough they will confess”

Statistics helps you to uncover the story

The do’s and don’ts• Quote numerous papers for trivial statements

– Use references only for statements that might be debated, i.e. no need for quoting in ”Eutrophication is a large environmental problem in many coastal areas (Nixon, Cloern, Paerl, Borum, Sand-Jensen, Valiela, Elmgren, + 5 more refs)”

– Use a maximum of 5 references and elaborate differences, if important

– Be specific when quoting, e.g. “Similarly, differences between in vivo fluorescence and extracted Chla have previously been found for cyanobacteria dominated communities (Pinto et al. 2001, Gregor & Maršálek 2004) .”