Twelve tips on writing a good scientific paper

Conveys All Critical Information 3. The abstract must convey all the cardinal findings and messages. Please remember that even the an avid reader of your work will read your abstract and at most look at some of your figures, skim your methods and results, and glance at your discussion and conclusions. Very few people—your editor, your reviewers, and readers working in the exact same area as you—will actually read the full content of your paper. Be sure that everything you put in your abstract is important and that nothing important is left out of your abstract. Avoid Excessive Literature Review 4. Do not overdo your review of the literature. Beginning medical writers have a tendency to review past studies on similar topics exhaustively. This is not necessary and can be excessively cumbersome for editors and readers. You must recognize prior work, but at the same time be aware that the purpose of your paper is to say what you studied and what were your findings. Whole series of papers can often be summarized by one or a few sentences describing the general thrust of prior research. In your discussion, you will be able to address significant similarities and contrasts vis-a-vis prior work in a succinct fashion. Avoid Excessive Use of Figures 5. Remember that the Figures appropriate for a publication are very different from those for a lecture presentation. For a presentation, you want to illustrate every point for ease of assimilation. You will want many slides. By contrast, for a publication, you need to minimize the illustrations. The reader can assimilate simple numerical data from the body of the text. Only complex compilations of data require a Figure or Table. Chose your figures for publication critically and sparingly. One Cardinal Visual Image 6. You should have one single, cardinal visual image which the reader will recall long-term that conveys the crux of your paper. This is what I call the Wacker's rule (after Frans Wackers, our distinguished chief of Nuclear Cardiology at Yale). We all know that visual material is readily assimilated and visual images easily recalled. Your cardinal figure may convey a change in a certain parameter before or after treatment. The figure may show a germinal histologic finding. The figure may illustrate the steps of a new technique. Nonetheless, you should have such a central figure, and it must be an exceptional one. You should ask yourself, if a colleague were to cite my work in a lecture, what one slide would I want him to show. This will be your cardinal figure. (Some illustrations of “cardinal figures” from publications by our group are included in the accompanying Figure.) Careful Final Re-Reading 7. Read and re-read until you know that everything in your paper is accurate. Make sure not only that all your data is well-substantiated and scientifically accurate, but also that all the numbers “add up.” Usually it is best to have at least one of your coauthors read the paper extremely critically, word by word in the text, and line by line in the Tables and captions, to check for errors. Oftentimes, it is good also to have a trusted colleague not directly involved in the work read your paper for accuracy. The author who actually composes the paper may not be able to spot his own errors or omissions. In my experience, the paper with no inconsistencies or inaccuracies in totals or other figures is a rarity. Include Section on Weaknesses of Your Study 8. Be sure to include a section on weaknesses of the current study. No study is immune from weaknesses, not even the largest, best-planned, double-blind, randomized, prospective multi-institutional trials. Most ordinary laboratory or clinical papers have major weaknesses. Patient number may be smaller than one would want. Relevance may hindered by pre-selection bias before a certain population reaches a tertiary center. Follow-up may not be as long as one would wish. The editors and reviewers will respect your work more if you show an awareness of the weaknesses of your study and enumerate these for your readership. Also, such frankness is an ethical responsibility, as readers may alter their care of patients based on your recommendations. Being aware of the limitations of your work will help the reader to determine if he feels your conclusions are firmly enough established to warrant a change in his clinical practice. Avoid Superlatives in Describing your Work 9. What I mean by this is that you should not succumb to saying that your work is “the first” or the “biggest series” or “shows the lowest mortality,” or other such superlative self-assessments. Very often, someone from somewhere will disprove your claim–perhaps from an article published in an obscure journal from another country. Your work and your data will speak for themselves. I learned this from the very wise Dr. William W. L. Glenn, the great cardiac surgical pioneer from Yale University. The Editor is Always Right 10. By and large, accept what your editor says and wants. He was chosen for his experience and insight. He is completely objective. He has enlisted expert opinions regarding your work rendered by recognized authorities. He directly controls whether or not your manuscript will become a published paper. Do what he wants in modifying your manuscript. Also—and this is very important—provide the editor a clear, concise tabulation of the changes you have rendered in your paper in response to his and the reviewer's comments. Statistical Consultation 11. Enlist statistical assistance liberally. Today's standards in terms of statistical analysis for leading journals are very high. If major data analysis is inherent in your research paper, it is often advisable to enlist the support and advice of a trained statistician in analyzing and interpreting your data. This can prevent later problems in the review process and also enable you to respond more meaningfully to any statistical issues that are raised. Do not be discouraged if your paper is rejected on one or more submissions for review 12. Some of the very best papers, which eventually come to be respected and frequently quoted, are not accepted on initial submission. You can learn from the reviewer's comments and submit your work to another journal. Anyone with significant experience in academic medicine has learned to become inured to the rejection process. This does not necessarily mean that your work is unworthy. You must persevere without getting discouraged. The author hopes that these observations will be of some use to the novice or occasional medical essayist and may help in achieving acceptance of your manuscripts for publication.