Basic Steps to Writing a Paper: Practice Makes Perfect
24 Feb 2017-THE BANGKOK MEDICAL JOURNAL (Bangkok Dusit Medical Service (BDMS))-Vol. 13, Iss: 1, pp 114-119
TL;DR: The authors outline this structure of a scientific article and then explain the individual components following the order of a typical scientific paper.
Abstract: The essential purpose of an article is to communicate the results of research. It should be written in clear, simple, concise and objective vocabulary. A scientific article is effective when it is coherent in both grammar and structure. This allows the reader to follow the author’s line of thought. In this article, the authors outline this structure and then explain the individual components following the order of a typical scientific paper.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: In this article, a discussion section of a scientific article should be organized in the following order: (a) statement of principal findings; (b) strengths and weaknesses of the study; (c) strength and weaknesses in relation to other studies, discussing particularly any differences in results; (d) meaning of study: possible mechanisms and implications; and (e) unanswered questions and future research.
Abstract: he Discussion is the hardest section of a scientific article to write, as cognitive skills must be used to properly contextualize the findings of a study. In this article, we guide scientific writers, particularly unexperienced ones, on how to structure a Discussion section based on an article by Docherty and Smith (1999). According to these authors, a discussion should be prepared by organizing information in the following order: (a) statement of principal findings; (b) strengths and weaknesses of the study; (c) strengths and weaknesses in relation to other studies, discussing particularly any differences in results; (d) meaning of the study: possible mechanisms and implications; and (e) unanswered questions and future research. Each component of this sequence is discussed in detail with examples drawn from the literature.
9 citations
Cites background from "Basic Steps to Writing a Paper: Pra..."
...You must explain the reasons for the limitations found (Falavigna et al., 2017) and explain the implications of these limitations for the conclusions of your study....
[...]
01 Jan 2018
TL;DR: In this paper, the implementation of experimental writing report by using scientific approach on the third grade students at SDN 15 Ulu Gadut, Pauh sub-district, Padang city.
Abstract: ─This research aimed to explain the implementation of experimental writing report by using scientific approach on the third grade students at SDN 15 Ulu Gadut, Pauh sub-district, Padang city. This research used qualitative approach. Data were collected by Primary Student Observation Sheet (PSOS). Data were analyzed by inductive analysis. Research subjects consisted of 36 students of SDN 15 Ulu Gadut, Pauh sub-district, Padang city. The results showed that the implementation of the scientific approach in learning to write experimental report motivated the students to learn how to write report in which the data were acquired from the real objects and phenomena happened, students felt challenged exploring of their curiosity about natural phenomena, the activities rose up the student about writing, and students interested in writing because they published the results of their experiments in written form. Keywords─writing report; scientific.
6 citations
Cites background from "Basic Steps to Writing a Paper: Pra..."
...The language used in writing the report should be a good language (simple and straightforward), clear (short and easy to understand), and well organized [41]....
[...]
TL;DR: The aim of this paper is to develop a practical method for reviewing a manuscript, explaining how the topics need to be evaluated, and not just provide a checklist, focusing on the peer review of research manuscripts submitted to scientific journals.
Abstract: Peer reviewers have significant responsibilities toward authors, editors, and readers, providing some measure of “quality control” for published research using a fair and transparent critical assessment of the research.13 The reviewer can detect bias, unsatisfactory study design, and ethical problems that may threaten the research, and provide feedback to the authors. The critical assessment of the evidence and validity of the scientific publication enables the editor to accept, reject, or revise the manuscript, minimizing the authors’ complaints if the paper is rejected. Even in those cases, the appropriate revision gives the author the chance to reorganize the article to resubmit it to another journal.6 Challenges of the peer-review process are: 1) the increasing need for reviewers due to an increasing number of peer-review requests, because promotions are obtained based on the number of publications or “publish or perish” syndrome and due to various online and hard copy publishers;14 2) increasing demands from the reviewers’ primary jobs, related to clinical demands, financial constraints, or more time spent on their research program; and 3) heterogeneous quality of reviews and different methods used to analyze the manuscript, sometimes because of insufficient training.1,8 Most journal reviewers acquire the skills and knowledge to perform a manuscript review through their clinical expertise and their own experience in critically appraising the literature. If an individual performs an inadequate review, it is likely that his or her service will not be requested again. Sometimes an inadequate review is not the reviewer’s fault, but is due to insufficient formal training provided by the journals to establish standard methods to analyze the manuscript, or due to lack of information. Even if the reviewers analyze the manuscript as though they themselves were submitting it, sometimes there is a lack of a comprehensive set of guidelines for all aspects of the review process, leading to an unsupported decision.10 To minimize this problem, the art of reviewing manuscripts should follow systematic scientific methods to enhance the quality and reduce the time spent on this practice. Systematic guidance minimizes the revision errors while the reviewers improve their practice.9 The aim of this paper is to develop a practical method for reviewing a manuscript, explaining how the topics need to be evaluated, and not just provide a checklist. We will focus on the peer review of research manuscripts submitted to scientific journals.
3 citations