Structure of a scientific paper
(Adapted from: George M. Hall - “How to Write a Paper” , ©BMJ Books, 2003)
The research you have conducted is obviously of vital importance and
must be read by the widest possible audience. It probably is safer to insult a
colleague's spouse, family, and driving than the quality of his or her
research. Fortunately, so many journals now exist that your chances of not
having the work published somewhere are small. Nevertheless, the paper must be
constructed in the approved manner and presented to the highest possible
standards. Editors and assessors without doubt will look adversely on scruffy
manuscripts - regardless of the quality of the science. All manuscripts are
constructed in a similar manner, although some notable exceptions exist, like
the format used by Nature. Such exceptions are unlikely to trouble you
in the early stages of your research career.
The object of publishing a scientific paper is
to provide a document that contains sufficient information to enable readers
to:
· assess the observations you made
· repeat the experiment if they wish
· determine whether the conclusions drawn are justified by the data.
The basic structure of a paper is summarized by
the acronym IMRAD, which stands for:
· Introduction (What question was asked?)
· Methods (Experimental system) (How was it studied?)
· Results (What was found?)
· And
· Discussion-Conclusions (What do the findings mean?)
· Literature
Introduction
The introduction should be brief and must state
clearly the question that you tried to answer in the study. To lead the reader
to this point, it is necessary to review the relevant literature briefly.
Many junior authors find it difficult to write
the introduction. The most common problem is the inability to state clearly
what question was asked. This should not be a problem if the study was planned
correctly - it is too late to rectify basic errors when attempting to write the
paper. Nevertheless, some studies seem to develop a life of their own, and the
original objectives can easily be forgotten. I find it useful to ask
collaborators from time to time what question we hope to answer. If I do not
receive a short clear sentence as an answer, then alarm bells ring.
The introduction must not include a review of
the literature. Only cite those references that are essential to justify your
proposed study. Three citations from different groups usually are enough to
convince most assessors that some fact is "well known" or "well recognised," particularly if the studies are from
different countries. Many research groups write the introduction to a paper
before the work is started, but you must never ignore pertinent literature
published while the study is in progress.
An example introduction might be:
It is well known that middle-aged male runners have
diffuse brain damage,1-3 but
whether this is present before they begin running or arises as a result of
repeated cerebral contusions during exercise has not been established. In the
present study, we examined cerebral function in a group of sedentary
middle-aged men before and after a six month exercise programme.
Cerebral function was assessed by ...
Methods (experimental system)
This important part of the manuscript
increasingly is neglected, and yet the methods section is the most common cause
of absolute rejection of a paper. If the methods used to try to answer the
question were inappropriate or flawed, then there is no salvation for the work.
The main purposes of the methods section are to describe, and sometimes defend,
the experimental design and to provide enough detail that a competent worker
could repeat the study. The latter is particularly important when you are deciding
how much to include in the text. If standard methods of measurement are used,
appropriate references are all that is required. In many instances,
"modifications" of published methods are used, and it is these that
cause difficulties for other workers. To ensure reproducible data, authors
should:
• give complete details of any new methods used
• give the precision of the measurements undertaken
• sensibly use statistical analysis.
The use of statistics is not covered in this
book. Input from a statistician should be sought at the planning stage of any
study. Statisticians invariably are helpful, and they have contributed greatly
to improving both the design and analysis of clinical investigations. They
cannot be expected, however, to resurrect a badly designed study.
Results
The results section of a paper has two key
features: there should be an overall description of the major findings of the
study; and the data should be presented clearly and concisely.
You do not need to present every scrap of data
that you have collected. A great temptation is to give all the results,
particularly if they were difficult to obtain, but this section should contain
only relevant, representative data. The statistical analysis of the results
must be appropriate. The easy availability of statistical software packages has
not encouraged young research workers to understand the principles involved. An
assessor is only able to estimate the validity of the statistical tests used,
so if your analysis is complicated or unusual, expect your paper to undergo
appraisal by a statistician.
You must strive for clarity in the results section by avoiding
unnecessary repetition of data in the text, figures, and tables. It is
worthwhile stating briefly what you did not find, as this may stop other
workers in the area undertaking unnecessary studies.
Discussion (Conclusion)
The initial draft of the discussion is almost invariably too long. It is
difficult not to write a long and detailed analysis of the literature that you
know so well. A rough guide to the length of this section, however, is that it
should not be more than one third of the total length of the manuscript
(Introduction + Methods + Results + Discussion). Ample scope often remains for
further pruning.
Many beginners find this section of the paper difficult. It is possible
to compose an adequate discussion around the points given in the next rows:
Writing the discussion
· Summarise the major findings
· Discuss possible problems with the methods used
· Compare your results with previous work
· Discuss the experimental and scientific findings (if any) of your work
· Suggest further work
· Produce a succinct conclusion
Common errors include
repetition of data already given in the results section, a belief that the
methods were beyond criticism, and preferential citing of previous work to suit
the conclusions. Good assessors will seize upon such mistakes, so do not even
contemplate trying to deceive them. Although IMRAD describes the basic structure
of a paper, other parts of a manuscript are important. The title, summary (or
abstract), and list of authors are described in Chapter 6. It is salutary to
remember that many people will read the title of the paper and some will read
the summary, but very few will read the complete text. The title and summary of
the paper are of great importance for indexing and abstracting purposes, as
well as enticing readers to peruse the complete text. The use of appropriate
references for a paper is described in Chapter 7; this section often is full of
mistakes. A golden rule is to list only relevant, published references and to
present them in a manner that is appropriate for the particular journal to
which the article is being submitted. The citation of large numbers of
references is an indicator of insecurity - not of scholarship. An authoritative
author knows the important references that are appropriate to the study.
Before you start the first
draft of the manuscript, carefully read the "Instructions to authors"
that every journal publishes, and prepare your paper accordingly. Some journals
give detailed instructions, often annually, and these
can be a valuable way of learning some of the basic rules. A grave mistake is
to submit a paper to one journal in the style of another; this suggests that it
has recently been rejected. At all stages of preparation of
the paper, go back and check with the instructions to authors to make sure that
your manuscript conforms. It seems very obvious, but if you wish to publish
in the IEEE Transactions, do not write your paper to conform with the Acta Technica Sinensis .
Read and re-read the instructions to authors.
Variations on the IMRAD system
are sometimes necessary in specialized circumstances, such as a letter to the editor , an abstract for presentation at a scientific
meeting, or a case report. Nevertheless, a fundamental structure is the basis
of all scientific papers.
Good luck!!!