DOCSLIB.ORG

Enhance Your Success As a Published Author

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Enhance Your Success As a Published Author Enhance Your Success as a Published Author Jane Carver Jan 23, 2014 Why Write? . Educational requirement . Advance your institution . Educate others . Increase competitiveness for funding . Gain recognition . Achieve promotion Why Write? “I would urge you to write not because it is a good thing, not because it is nice to see your name in print, but rather because you will really get to know a field only if you contribute to it.” Mahoney MJ, Psychology of the Scientist, 1979 What to Write . Original research . Case report . Letter to editor . Commentary . Reflective writing . Editorial . Review article . Book chapter . Book or chapter review Always Be Writing . Always have a “work in progress” on your desk – New projects – Revisions . Keep up with the literature . Save examples of good writing – Organization, layout – Tables and graphs – Statistics . Use templates of previous manuscripts – Don’t self-plagiarize! JPMed.2013.0302-Decision Rejection without Peer Review Dear Dr. X: Thank you again for submitting your manuscript entitled "X" to Journal of Perinatal Medicine (JPMED). I have carefully read your article and we checked the similarity index. The automatic plagiarism check of your article discovered that the overall similarity index percentage is high. I therefore decided not to initiate the peer review process. I regret that I cannot accept your manuscript for publication in JPMED. This decision must be regarded as final. Thank you for considering JPMED for publication of your research. I hope the outcome of this specific submission will not discourage you from submission of future manuscripts. Kind regards Dr. Joachim W. Dudenhausen FRCOG Professor of Obstetrics Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Perinatal Medicine . Set aside protected time each week . Identify most productive time . Create a suitable environment . Develop a publication plan before you start – Timetables and deadlines – Authorship Authorship Wren et al., EMBO reports, 8:988, 2007 Authorship . Number, order and responsibilities of each author should be agreed upon before starting your project – Part of your publication plan . Include author list on first page of first draft Author Order . Levels of participation First author (primary) Last author (senior or supervisory) Second author (contributing) Baerlocher et al., J Invest Med 2007 ICMJE: Authorship 1. Substantial contributions to conception, design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data, AND 2. Drafting or critically revising article for important intellectual content, AND 3. Final approval of version to be published, AND 4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved ICMJE: Authorship . Not justified: acquisition of funding, data collection, general supervision . All designated should qualify and all who qualify should be listed . Should have participated enough to take public responsibility for appropriate portions . Large, multi-center groups guarantors Authorship Abuses . Promiscuous authorship – Coercion – Honorary, guest or gift . Ghost authorship . Denial Strange K. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 295:C567, 2008 Acknowledgements • Contributors who don’t meet authorship criteria Technical help, writing assistance, department chair • Financial or material support • “Participating investigators”, “scientific advisors,” “provided and cared for study patients” Obtain written permission Authorship . Keep your authorship name consistent . Use middle initial – Pubmed hits w/ and w/o middle initial: • carver j 376 • carver jd 36 . Avoid hyphenated or other surname format Use Standardized Formats and Published Guidelines . IMRaD: Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion . CONSORT, Equator, MIBBI, GPP2 guidelines Common Reasons for Acceptance . Importance or timeliness of the problem studied . Well-designed study . Well-written Common Reasons for Rejection . Poorly written . Poor experimental design . No clear hypothesis/objective . Statistics – Sample size too small or biased Sample size calculations! – Inappropriate or incomplete statistics Consult a statistician before you start your study!! “To consult the statistician after an experiment is finished is often merely to ask him to conduct a post mortem examination. He can perhaps say what the experiment died of.” Sir Ronald Fisher, 1890-1962 Common Reasons for Rejection . Incomplete or outdated literature review . Insufficient data presented to support conclusions . Not appropriate for chosen journal Choose the Right Journal – and Choose it Before You Write . Who is the target audience – Clinicians, investigators, both? – Specialists or generalists? . How do I intend to reach them? – Electronic, print media or both? – Pay-per-view or open-access? . Institutional considerations – Non-indexed journal promotion? Choose the Right Journal . How soon do I want/need it to be published? . Submission/Publication costs? – Submission, page charges, color figures, supplemental data, public access fee . Supplemental data? . Negative data of specialized interest? – www.mpip-initiative.org Choose the Right Journal . Review bibliography/directories to find journals that have published similar papers – PubMed, Directory of Open Access Journals . Review Instructions to Authors – Length restrictions, types of articles typically published Consider Journal Impact Factor Example: 2011, Pediatrics Total # citations to everything published in Pediatrics 2009 + 2010 divided by Total # articles published in Pediatrics 2009 + 2010 2011 Impact Factors All Journals RANK JOURNAL IMPACT # FACTOR ARTICLES 1 CA-Cancer J Clin 102 19 2 New Engl J Med 53 349 3 Annu Rev Immunol 53 23 4 Rev Mod Phys 44 38 5 Chem Rev 40 196 2011 Impact Factors Pediatrics RANK JOURNAL IMPACT # FACTOR ARTICLES 1 J Am Acad Child Psy 6.4 99 2 Pediatrics 5.4 698 3 Arch Pediat Adol Med 4.1 144 4 J Pediatr 4.1 319 5 Dev Disabil Res Rev 4.0 Finding Journal Evaluation Measures Shimberg Library . All eResources –Web of Knowledge –Journal Citation Reports (header) Getting started . Make sure your objective is clear . Summarize the message – Single overriding communication objective – Make sure your co-authors agree! – Describe it outloud – Version control • Keep copies of all versions Blank Page Panic . Suggested order: – Methods – Results – Discussion – Introduction Keep Focused on the Message . Clearly define the research question or hypothesis . What is your response to the research question? . How does your response compare with that of others? . What are the implications? – New paradigm, clinical approach The Manuscript Draft . It’s OK if it’s too long and not polished . Review data for errors . Put it aside revise . Have co-authors, colleagues/friends review – English second language? . Review instructions to authors . Spell check – Use the “add to dictionary” feature Beware the Spellcheck! To rite with care is quite a feet Of witch won should bee proud And wee mussed dew the best wee can Sew flaw’s are knot aloud AMWA Journal, 23:88, 2008 The Manuscript Draft . Review references – Up to 30% misquoted – Use a referencing program – Use references from journal submitting to – Don’t leave out references from potential reviewers Revise and Revise Again . “The important thing is not writing, but rewriting.” Lester King, JAMA editor Pre-Submission Inquiry . Streamlines the submission/review process . Suitable for the journal? . Suggest a more suitable journal? . Useful for : – Time-sensitive study – Unusual circumstances . Cultivates close working relationship with editor – PLOS Medicine: “It is essential that authors submit a presubmission inquiry before submitting a full paper. Presubmission inquiries allow authors to quickly find out whether their paper is likely to be broadly suitable for PLOS Medicine”. The Cover Letter – Sell the Product! . What is the purpose of the study? . Why is it important? . How does it relate to existing literature? . Mention any prior communications Peer Review Write with peer review in mind Instructions to Reviewers Pediatrics . Is this manuscript important or trivial? . Is it redundant or new? . Is it relevant to clinicians, or only to those involved in research? . Is it of interest to a limited number of sub- specialists? . Have you reviewed the statistics? Peer Review 1. Accept with no revisions (rare!) 2. Accept with minor modifications 3. Accept only after major revision and further review 4. Reject 5. Suitable for another journal Accept/Reconsider with Revisions Accept/Reconsider with Revisions . Carefully consider each of the reviewer comments with your co-authors . Decide which revisions should be made . Justify – politely – why you reject suggestions Reject . Appeal? . Carefully consider each of the reviewer comments with your co-authors . Decide which revisions should be made You may get the same reviewer(s) next time, and they don’t appreciate having their suggestions ignored! Unqualified Rejection . Reformat and submit to another journal the next day – Use a referencing program Revise and Re-submit “Manuscripts are unlikely to get much better sitting on one’s desk.” El-Serag, HB, 2006 After your paper is accepted Technical Editing There are no perfect manuscripts . Instructions to authors not followed . Referencing errors . Language use errors . “House style” – Statistics – Repetition of data – British vs American The Proofs . The author is responsible for ensuring that the final edited copy is correct Clinical
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Publication Guidelines for Quality Improvement in Health Care
    Supplement Qual Saf Health Care: first published as 10.1136/qshc.2008.029066 on 3 October 2008. Downloaded from Publication guidelines for quality improvement in health care: evolution of the SQUIRE project F Davidoff,1 P Batalden,2 D Stevens,2 G Ogrinc,2 S Mooney for the SQUIRE development group 1 Institute for Healthcare ABSTRACT published original reports of quality improvement Improvement, New Hampshire, 2 In 2005, draft guidelines were published for reporting projects provided full information on the indivi- USA; Dartmouth Institute for studies of quality improvement interventions as the initial dual guideline items we had identified,1 while Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Center for Leadership step in a consensus process for development of a more individual guideline items were not addressed at and Improvement, Dartmouth definitive version. This article contains the full revised all in 4–44% of those reports (Mooney S, Ogrinc G, College, Hanover, New version of the guidelines, which the authors refer to as unpublished). Hampshire, USA SQUIRE (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Our initial draft guidelines were, of course, not a Correspondence to: Excellence). This paper also describes the consensus tested approach to judging the quality of the Dr F Davidoff, 143 Garden process, which included informal feedback from authors, improvement literature, since that draft was based Street, Wethersfield, CT 06109, editors and peer reviewers who used the guidelines; largely on the authors’ personal experience with USA; [email protected] formal written commentaries; input from a group of improvement work, and was intended only as an initial step towards an established standard.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Challenges in Mining Scientific Papers
    BIR 2019 Workshop on Bibliometric-enhanced Information Retrieval Beyond Metadata: the New Challenges in Mining Scientific Papers Iana Atanassova[0000−0003−3571−4006] CRIT, Universit´ede Bourgogne Franche-Comt´e,France [email protected] Abstract. Scientific articles make use of complex argumentative struc- tures whose exploitation from a computational point of view is an im- portant challenge. The exploration of scientific corpora involves methods and techniques from Natural Language Processing in order to develop applications in the field of Information Retrieval, Automatic Synthesis, citation analyses or ontological population. Among the problems that remain to be addressed in this domain is the developing fine-grained analyses of the text content of articles to identify specific semantic cat- egories such as the expression of uncertainty and controversy that are an integral part of the scientific process. The well-known IMRaD struc- ture (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) is often used as a standard template that governs the structure of articles in experimental sciences and provides clearly identifiable text units. We study the inter- nal structure of articles from several different perspectives and report on the processing of a large sample extracted from the PLOS corpus. On the one hand, we analyse citation contexts with respect to their positions, verbs used and similarities across the different sections, and on the other hand, we study other phenomena such as the expression of uncertainty. The production of standard datasets dedicated to such tasks is now nec- essary and would provide favourable environment for the development of new approaches, e.g. using neural networks, that require large amounts of labelled data.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Manual for Residents
    RESEARCH MANUAL FOR RESIDENTS A guide to the path less traveled Joy L. Palmer, D.O. With contributions from Cynthia Norton, M.S., OMS IV Judith Viola, OMS III UNECOM 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Acknowledgement I. Why conduct clinical research? 3 II. Types of clinical research 5 III. Nitty-gritty terminology 8 IV. Timeline 11 a. PGY-1 b. PGY-2 c. PGY-3 V. Designing your project 16 a. And the correct question is… b. How and what to measure c. Subject participation – who, where, how long? d. Data analysis VI. Institutional Review Board (IRB) 20 VII. Funding your project 22 a. Where to look b. Networking c. Grant writing VIII. Manuscript Writing and Publication 26 IX. Resources – people, places, publications 28 X. Lessons learned 32 a. Mentor selection b. Proposal review, and review, and review c. Recruiting d. Size does matter Appendix A – Annotated bibliography of recommended readings Appendix B – Table format of recommended timeline Appendix C – Poster template Appendix D - Hard Copy of Biosketch INTRODUCTION Good day, Colleagues: By no means am I an expert on designing, performing and/or publishing clinical research. In fact, before residency, I had never even participated in any research activity outside of being a subject in psychology studies as an undergrad! I have however, lived through, that’s right, I have survived the experience of designing and implementing a clinical research project as a resident at the University of New England and want to pass on the lessons I’ve learned. At times it has felt like I was in a foreign country without an interpreter, without any knowledge of how to speak the language, AND without any money to bribe or shall we say compensate someone to provide me with directions.
    [Show full text]
  • Agenda & Supporting Documents
    Cochrane Scientific Committee AGENDA 28th February 2018 8pm-10pm UK GMT Cochrane Scientific Committee Agenda 28th February 2017 OPEN ACCESS 2 Philippe Ravaud (PR) Professor of Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, Head of the Clinical Epidemiology Centre, Hôtel-Dieu Hospital, Paris Descartes University, France AGENDA and Director of Cochrane France. Johannes Reistma (JR) Associate Professor at the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands and a member of both the DT – David Tovey, Editor in Chief, JC – Jackie Chandler, Methods Co-ordinator Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Working Group and the Screening and Committee members: Diagnostic Tests Methods Group. Corinna Dressler (CD) Rebecca Ryan (RR) Research Associate at the Division of Evidence-Based Medicine (dEBM) at the Research Fellow at the School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany University, Australia and Deputy Co-ordinating Editor of the Cochrane Donna Gilles (DG) Consumers and Communication Group. Senior Researcher, Clinical Performance Mental Health Network, Western Christopher Schmid (CS) Sydney, Australia and editor for both the Cochrane Developmental, Psychosocial Professor of Biostatistics, founding member and Co-Director of the Center for and Learning Problems Group and Diagnostic Test Accuracy Review Group. Evidence Synthesis in Health, Brown School of Public Health, US, Fellow of the Julian Higgins (JH) American Statistical Association (ASA) and Founding Co-Editor of Research Professor of Evidence Synthesis at the School of Social and Community Synthesis Methods. Medicine, at the University of Bristol, Bristol, UK, and current Senior Scientific Nicole Skoetz (NS) Editor of the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews for Interventions.
    [Show full text]
  • Instructions to Authors and Guidelines for Manuscript Submission
    Instructions to Authors and Guidelines for Manuscript Submission 1 GENERAL INFORMATION 1.1 Objectives and readership 1.2 Contents 1.2.1 Original research articles 1.2.2 Reviews 1.2.3 Special reports 1.2.4 Opinion and analysis 1.2.5 Brief communications 1.2.6 Current topics 1.2.7 Letters to the editor 1.3 Language 1.4 Guidelines and research protocols 1.5 Ethics 1.6 Conflict of interests 1.7 Copyright 1.8 Peer review process 1.9 Dissemination 2 GUIDELINES FOR MANUSCRIPT SUBMISSION 2.1 General criteria for manuscript acceptance 2.2 Manuscript specifications 2.3 Formatting requirements 2.4 Title 2.5 Authorship 2.6 Abstract and keywords page 2.7 Body of the article 2.8 Tables and figures 2.9 Submitting the manuscript 2.10 Editing the manuscript 1 GENERAL INFORMATION 1.1 Objectives and readership The Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública/Pan American Journal of Public Health (RPSP/PAJPH) is a free-access, peer-reviewed, monthly journal, published as the flagship scientific and technical publication of the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), headquartered in Washington, D.C., United States of America. Its mission is to serve as an important vehicle for disseminating scientific public health information of international significance, mainly in areas related to PAHO's essential mission to strengthen national and local health systems and improve the health of the peoples of the Americas. To this end, the RPSP/PAJPH publishes materials that reflect PAHO's main strategic objectives and programmatic areas: health and human development, health promotion and protection, prevention and control of communicable and chronic diseases, maternal and child health, gender and women's health, mental health, violence, nutrition, environmental health, disaster management, development of health systems and services, social determinants of health, and health equity.
    [Show full text]
  • Teaching and Supporting Researchers to Develop Better Research Questions
    Teaching and supporting researchers to develop better research questions EBHC preconference workshop Sicily, October 2017 Trish Groves Director of academic outreach BMJ Editor-in-chief BMJ Open [email protected] twitter @trished Competing interests I’m editor in chief of BMJ Open and Director of academic outreach at BMJ Publishing Group, owned by the British Medical Association (BMA) Part of the revenue for BMJ comes from drug & device manufacturers through advertising, reprint sales, & sponsorship. The BMJ (British Medical Journal) and BMJ Open are open access journals that charge article publishing fees for research. I’m editorial lead for the BMJ Research to Publication eLearning programme (by subscription). My annual bonus scheme is based partly on the overall financial performance of both BMJ and BMJ Research to Publication 85% research is wasted, costing >$100bn/yr Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 2014; 374: 86-9. REWARD Alliance http://researchwaste.net/about/ Why do editors reject research? What are the main reasons for journal editors to reject a research paper, even if well written and presented? • the research question isn’t sufficiently new, interesting, or important • the question is answered with suboptimal design • investigators often lack training on developing good research questions, choosing study designs, and reporting research effectively What exactly is a research question? An article reporting a study should state a specific question A research question is more than an objective or aim. It focuses the hypothesis and suggests how to find an answer Broad questions may be split to yield several testable hypotheses.
    [Show full text]
  • Writing Narrative Style Literature Reviews
    Writing narrative style literature reviews Correspondence to: Rossella Ferrari Rossella Ferrari Milan, Italy Freelance medical writer, Milan Italy [email protected] Abstract Reviews provide a synthesis of published literature summarizing what has been previously published, on a topic and describe its current state-of-art. avoiding duplications, and seeking new study Reviews in clinical research are thus useful when areas not yet addressed.3,5,6 While PRISMA designing studies or developing practice guidelines. (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews The two standard types of reviews are (a) systematic and Meta-Analyses) provides reporting guidelines and (b) non-systematic or narrative review. Unlike for SRs, no acknowledged guidelines are available systematic reviews that benefit from guidelines for NR writing. The task of review writing is fre- such as PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for quently assigned to medical writers, for example, Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement, on new or completed research projects, synthesis there are no acknowledged guidelines for narrative for editorial projects. However, training opportu- reviews. I have attempted to define the best practice nities on writing literature reviews in the biomedical recommendations for the preparation of a narrative field are few. The objective of the present study is to review in clinical research. The quality of a narrative identify practice guidelines to improve NR writing review may be improved by borrowing from the sys- on topics related to clinical research. tematic review methodologies that are aimed at reducing bias in the selection of articles for review Comparison of narrative and and employing an effective bibliographic research systematic styles of literature reviews strategy.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Write a Paper?
    How to write a paper? Bernard Pochet, PhD (ULiège Library) 2021 (cc-by) Bernard Pochet, PhD (ULiège Library) How to write a paper? 2021 (cc-by) 1 / 50 [recall] In science, research and literature are linked Bernard Pochet, PhD (ULiège Library) How to write a paper? 2021 (cc-by) 2 / 50 Don’t forget the processes Bernard Pochet, PhD (ULiège Library) How to write a paper? 2021 (cc-by) 3 / 50 Especially the editorial process Bernard Pochet, PhD (ULiège Library) How to write a paper? 2021 (cc-by) 4 / 50 Write to be read … barriers? The title: short, attractive, representative of the text/research Keywords: thesaurus? Abstract: abstract structure? Authors, their affiliation Language: do you speak/write/read English? The text: The quality of the scientific approach The structure of the text: IMRaD,… The quality of the writing: readability clarity precision style Bernard Pochet, PhD (ULiège Library) How to write a paper? 2021 (cc-by) 5 / 50 Although not what was planned at the beginning of the research… A paper: Is : A problem and a solution; A new and original answer (compared to what we already know); Only one message. Bernard Pochet, PhD (ULiège Library) How to write a paper? 2021 (cc-by) 6 / 50 A paper: Is : A problem and a solution; A new and original answer (compared to what we already know); Only one message. Although not what was planned at the beginning of the research… Bernard Pochet, PhD (ULiège Library) How to write a paper? 2021 (cc-by) 6 / 50 Anatomy of a research paper Bernard Pochet, PhD (ULiège Library) How to write a paper?
    [Show full text]
  • Organization of a Research Paper: the IMRAD Format
    Chapter 2 Organization of a Research Paper: The IMRAD Format Abstract Most scientific papers are prepared according to a format called IMRAD. The term represents the first letters of the words Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, And, Discussion. It indicates a pattern or format rather than a complete list of headings or components of research papers; the missing parts of a paper are: Title, Authors, Keywords, Abstract, Conclusions, and References. Additionally, some papers include Acknowledgments and Appendices. The Introduction explains the scope and objective of the study in the light of current knowledge on the subject; the Materials and Methods describes how the study was conducted; the Results section reports what was found in the study; and the Dis- cussion section explains meaning and significance of the results and provides suggestions for future directions of research. The manuscript must be prepared according to the Journal’s instructions to authors. An important point to keep in mind is that there is no standard or uniform style that is followed by all journals. Each journal has its own style; but they all have their own Instructions to Authors (or other word combinations to mean the same thing). Once you select a journal to which you wish to submit your manuscript, please FOLLOW THE JOURNAL’S INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS, which can usually be found in each volume of the journal (note that a volume may contain several numbers, and there could be multiple volumes in a year), or easily accessed from the journal’s webpage. Some authors may not be fully convinced about the logic of some of these instructions, but it is a futile effort to argue with the journal or complain about its instructions.
    [Show full text]
  • Organising a Manuscript Reporting Quality Improvement Or Patient Safety Research
    Downloaded from qualitysafety.bmj.com on January 31, 2014 - Published by group.bmj.com BMJ Quality & Safety Online First, published on RESEARCH14 May 2013 AND as REPORTING10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001603 METHODOLOGY Organising a manuscript reporting quality improvement or patient safety research Christine G Holzmueller,1,2 Peter J Pronovost1,3,4,5 1Armstrong Institute for Patient ABSTRACT While a useful manual, it does not discuss Safety and Quality, Johns Background Peer-reviewed publication plays the nuances of reporting quality improve- Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA important roles in disseminating research ment and patient safety research. 2Department of Anesthesiology findings, developing generalisable knowledge Published guidelines are available to & Critical Care Medicine, The and garnering recognition for authors and improve the reporting of quality improve- Johns Hopkins University School institutions. Nonetheless, many bemoan the ment and other health services–related of Medicine, Baltimore, 5 Maryland, USA whole manuscript writing process, intimidated by research. The Standards for QUality 3Departments of Anesthesiology the arbitrary and somewhat opaque conventions. Improvement Reporting Excellence & Critical Care Medicine, and Methods This paper offers practical advice about (SQUIRE) guidelines offer an informative Surgery, Johns Hopkins organising and writing a manuscript reporting University School of Medicine, checklist when describing quality improve- Baltimore, Maryland, USA quality improvement or patient safety
    [Show full text]
  • IMRAD, Agriculture Economics, Scientific Paper Structure, Paper Writing
    International Journal of Information Science 2020, 10(1): 9-14 DOI: 10.5923/j.ijis.20201001.02 Scientific Paper Structure for Agricultural Economists Jacqueline Baidoo Department of Agriculture Economics and Agribusiness, School of Basic and Applied Sciences, University for Ghana, Legon, Accra, Ghana Abstract The introduction; materials and methods; results and discussion (IMRAD) structure makes it easy for one to present his research findings. Is this structure applicable for agriculture economics and agribusiness scientists? This question was answered using 5 journals from SCOPUS. IMRAD structure is good since it helps the reader to follow the sequence of a paper. The IMRAD structure should be IMRADC to include the conclusion since conclusion summarizes the findings and discussions and also make recommendations. Agricultural economics journals should stick to the IMRADC structure. Keywords IMRAD, Agriculture economics, Scientific paper structure, Paper writing reviewing papers in recent issues of journals published. 1. Introduction This study on the IMRAD structure would help agricultural economist scientist follow a set of pattern for writing The introduction; materials and methods; results and papers. discussion (IMRAD) structure was adapted in 1970 and from 1972, it was a requirement by editors [1]. This structure since then is widely accepted in scientific writing. 2. Methods The IMRAD structure provides a skeleton for structuring a The research question was answered by finding out from research paper [2]. This structure makes it easy for one to agriculture economics and agribusiness colleagues at the present his research findings [2]. There has however, been University of Ghana the journals they publish in. Fifteen challenges with the IMRAD structure regarding which journals were identified.
    [Show full text]
  • The Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion (IMRAD) Structure: a fifty-Year Survey
    The introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRAD) structure: a ®fty-year survey By Luciana B. Sollaci, MS [email protected] Library Director William Enneking Library Sarah Network of Hospitals Brasilia, Federal District 70335-901 Brazil Mauricio G. Pereira, MD, DrPH [email protected] Professor of Epidemiology University of Brasilia Department of Health Sciences Brasilia, Federal District 70919-900 Brazil Catholic University of Brasilia Faculty of Medicine Brasilia, Federal District 71966-700 Brazil Background: The scienti®c article in the health sciences evolved from the letter form and purely descriptive style in the seventeenth century to a very standardized structure in the twentieth century known as introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRAD). The pace in which this structure began to be used and when it became the most used standard of today's scienti®c discourse in the health sciences is not well established. Purpose: The purpose of this study is to point out the period in time during which the IMRAD structure was de®nitively and widely adopted in medical scienti®c writing. Methods: In a cross-sectional study, the frequency of articles written under the IMRAD structure was measured from 1935 to 1985 in a randomly selected sample of articles published in four leading journals in internal medicine: the British Medical Journal, JAMA, The Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine. Results: The IMRAD structure, in those journals, began to be used in the 1940s. In the 1970s, it reached 80% and, in the 1980s, was the only pattern adopted in original papers. Conclusions: Although recommended since the beginning of the twentieth century, the IMRAD structure was adopted as a majority only in the 1970s.
    [Show full text]