HOW TO WRITE A WORLD CLASS PAPER

紀曉貝
Kee Siaw Pae, Taiwan Sales Director

Elsevier Author Workshop
Sep 2009
 Outline
•To publish or not to publish…
•Writing a quality manuscript
•Preparations
•Article construction
•Language
•Technical details
•Revisions and response to reviewers
•Ethical issues
•Conclusions: getting accepted
To publish or not to
publish…
 Why publish?

•Scientists publish to share with the research

community findings that advance knowledge and
understanding

•To present new, original results or methods

•To rationalize published results

•To present a review of the field or to summarize a

particular topic
 Publish or perish

Funding
Bodies

Grant Scientists /
Writing Clinicians

Journal
Publication
 Who judges your article?

• Someone like you!

• Chief editor has the final say
• Reviewers check the manuscript in detail
• All are based in a university and are
fulltime researchers
• Checking articles is an activity outside of
their normal job
• They’re very very busy…
 Publishers do want quality

WANTED NOT WANTED

• Originality • Duplications
• Significant advances • Reports of no scientific
in field interest
• Appropriate methods • Work out of date
and conclusions • Inappropriate methods
• Readability or conclusions
• Studies that meet • Studies with
ethical standards insufficient data
Writing a quality manuscript

• Preparations
 What type of manuscript?

Full articles / Original articles

(including Theoretical, Methodology papers, Case studies, …)
Letters / Rapid Communications / Short Communications
Review papers / Perspectives

• Self-evaluate your work: Is it sufficient for a full article? Or are your

results so thrilling that they need to be revealed as soon as possible?

• Ask your supervisor and colleagues for advice on manuscript type.

Sometimes outsiders may see things more clearly than you.
 Who is the audience?

• Do you want to reach specialists,

multidisciplinary researchers, or a general
audience? You will need to adjust information
and writing style accordingly
• Journals, even in similar subjects, reach readers
with different backgrounds
• Each journal has its own style; read other
articles to get an idea of what is accepted
• Is the readership worldwide or local?
 Which journal?
• Consider:
– Aims and scope (check journal websites and
recent articles)
– Types of articles
– Readership
– Current hot topics (go through recent
abstracts)
– Asking colleagues for advice

Sometimes it is necessary to lower one’s sights

or return to the lab/clinic to obtain more data
Consulting the Guide for Authors will
save your time and the editor’s

All editors hate wasting time on poorly

prepared manuscripts
 Format

• Consult and apply the list of guidelines in the

“Guide for Authors”
• Ensure that you use the correct:
– Layout
– Section lengths (stick to word limits)
– Nomenclature, abbreviations and spelling (British vs.
American)
– Reference format
– Number/type of figures and tables
– Statistics
Writing a quality manuscript

• Article construction
 Article structure
• Title
• Authors Need to be accurate and informative for
• Abstract effective indexing and searching
• Keywords
• Main text (IMRaD)
– Introduction
– Methods Each has a distinct function
– Results
– Discussion (Conclusion)
• Acknowledgements
• References
• Supplementary material
 Title

A good title should contain the fewest possible words

that adequately describe the contents of a paper
DO DON’T
Convey main findings of Use unnecessary jargon
research Use uncommon
Be specific abbreviations
Use ambiguous terms
Be concise
Use unnecessary detail
Be complete
Focus on part of the
Attract readers content only
 Title

Slower processing is correlated with higher

levels of depressed mood, fatigue, lower verbal
fluency, fewer words and digits recalled and
poorer recall of visual-spatial information in MS
patients

Relationships between information processing,

depression, fatigue and cognition in multiple
sclerosis
 Authors and affiliations

Be consistent with spelling, full versus short

names, full versus short addresses

Surnames: Pérez-García / Pérez / García

Middle Initial: Use consistently or not at all
First Names: Dave / David
Affiliation: Faculty of Medicine / Faculty of Medical and
Health Sciences
 Abstract

The quality of an abstract will strongly influence

the editor’s decision

A good abstract:
•Is precise and honest
•Can stand alone
•Uses no technical jargon
•Is brief and specific
•Cites no references

Use the abstract to “sell” your article

 Keywords

Keywords are important for indexing: they

enable your manuscript to be more easily
identified and cited

Check the Guide for Authors for journal

requirements

•Keywords should be specific

•Avoid uncommon abbreviations and general terms
 Keywords

Bad keywords: Psychiatric disorder, NRG1, LD, SNPs, Japanese large sample, association
 Introduction

Provide the necessary background

information to put your work into context

It should be clear from the introduction:

•Why the current work was performed

–aims
–significance
•What has been done before
•What was done in your research (in brief terms)
•What was achieved (in brief terms)
 Introduction

DO
•Consult the Guide for Authors for word limit
•“Set the scene”
•Outline “the problem” and hypotheses
•Ensure that the literature cited is balanced, up
to date and relevant
•Define any non-standard abbreviations and
jargon
 Introduction

DON’T
•Write an extensive review of the field
•Cite disproportionately your own work, work of
colleagues or work that supports your findings while
ignoring contradictory studies or work by competitors
•Describe methods, results or conclusions other than
to outline what was done and achieved in the final
paragraph
•Overuse terms like “novel” and “for the first time”
 Introduction

Rotenone is a naturally occurring plant compound derived from the root and bark of
some Luguminosae species… Administration of rotenone has been shown to lead to
biochemical, anatomical, and behavioral symptoms resembling Parkinson’s disease
due to neurotoxicity [1–3]. Previous studies have shown that… However, other
studies contradict these findings… Understanding the exact mode of action of
rotenone should provide additional useful information toward its possible application
in oral cancer treatment. In this report, we…
 Methods

The Methods section must provide sufficient information so

that a knowledgeable reader can reproduce the experiment

List suppliers of reagents and manufacturers of equipment, and define

apparatus in familiar terms:
“using an AD 340C plate reader (Beckman Coulter)”
OR
“using a plate reader (Beckman Coulter AD 340C)
NOT
“using a Beckman Coulter AD 340C.”
Unless the Guide for Authors states otherwise, use the past tense; the
present tense is usually only used in methodology-type papers
 Results

The main findings of the research

DO DON’T
•Use figures and •Duplicate data
tables to summarize among tables, figures
data and text
•Show the results of •Use graphics to
statistical analysis illustrate data that can
•Compare “like with easily be summarized
like” with text
 Graphics

“Readers… often look at the graphics first and many

times go no further. Therefore, the reviewer should
be particularly sensitive to inclusion of clear and
informative graphics.”

– Henry Rapoport, Associate Editor, Journal of

Organic Chemistry
 Graphics

Figures and tables are the most effective way

to present results
BUT:
•Captions should be able to stand alone, such that
the figures and tables are understandable without
the need to read the entire manuscript
•The data represented should be easy to interpret
•Colour should only be used when necessary
Graphics
Illustrations should only be
used to present essential data
The information in the table can be
presented in one sentence:

‘The surface soils were dark grayish

brown, grading to light olive brown
(woodland), light olive brown
(wetland), and pale olive (grassland)
at 100 cm.’

Summarize results in the text where

possible
 Graphics

The figure and table

show the same
information, but the
table is more direct
and clear

ECOLOGICAL GROUP

Station I II III IV V

75U 91.3 5.3 3.2 0.2 0.0

75R 89.8 6.1 3.6 0.5 0.0
200R 69.3 14.2 8.6 6.8 1.1
500R 63.0 29.5 3.4 4.2 0.0
1000R 86.7 8.5 4.5 0.2 0.0
 Graphics

•Legend is poorly
1-2 defined
2-2
Computation time per example

•Graph contains too

1-1 much data
2-1 •No trend lines

Number of Examples (in thousands)

 Graphics

•Legend is well
method1,dual
defined but there is
method2,dual
Computation time per example

still too much data

method1,single and no trendlines
method2,single

Number of Examples (in thousands)

 Graphics

Computation time per example

Computation time per example

Method 1 Method 2
dual processors dual processors
single processor single processor

Number of Examples (in thousands) Number of Examples (in thousands)

•Legend is clear
•Data is better organized
•Trend lines are present
 Statistics

•Indicate the statistical tests used with all relevant

parameters
mean ± SD
•Give numerator and denominators with
percentages
40% (100/250)
•Use means and standard deviations to report
normally distributed data
 Statistics

•Use medians and interpercentile ranges to

report skewed data
•Report P values
p=0.0035 rather than p<0.05
•The word “significant” should only be used to
describe “statistically significant differences”
 Discussion

Describe
•How the results relate to the study’s aims and hypotheses
•How the findings relate to those of other studies
•All possible interpretations of your findings
•Limitations of the study

Avoid
•Making “grand statements” that are not supported by the
data
Example: “This novel treatment will massively reduce the
prevalence of malaria in the third world”
•Introducing new results or terms
Discussion
 Conclusion

Put your study into CONTEXT

Describe how it represents an advance in the field

Suggest future experiments

BUT

Avoid repetition with other sections

Avoid being overly speculative
Don’t over-emphasize the impact of your study
 Conclusion

In summary, findings from the present study are in general accordance with
previous studies that suggest…. There is a need to establish dose-dependent
effects of EPA and DHA separately and in different population groups. If findings
from this study are applicable to consumption of fish, then intake at the upper level
of the current UK guideline range [42] may not influence cardiovascular risk
factors in fairly healthy, normolipidemic and middle-aged males.

The Conclusion should put your study into CONTEXT

 Acknowledgements
Acknowledge anyone who has helped you with the
study, including:
•Researchers who supplied materials or reagents,
e.g. vectors or antibodies
•Anyone who helped with the writing or English, or offered
critical comments about the content
•Anyone who provided technical help

State why people have been acknowledged and

ask their permission
Acknowledge sources of funding, including any
grant or reference numbers
 References

Check the Guide for Authors for the correct format

Check Avoid
•Spelling of author •Personal communications,
names unpublished observations
•Punctuation and submitted manuscripts
not yet accepted
•Number of authors to
include before using “et •Citing articles published
al.” only in the local language

•Reference style •Excessive self-citation and

journal self-citation
 Supplementary material

Information related to and supportive of the main text,

but of secondary importance

Includes:
•Microarray data
•Sequence data
•Method validation
•Additional controls
•Video data

Will be available online when the manuscript is published

Writing a quality manuscript

• Language
 The three “C”s

Good writing possesses the following three “C”s:

•Clarity
•Conciseness
•Correctness (accuracy)

The key is to be as brief and specific as

possible without omitting essential details
 Know the enemy

Good writing avoids the following traps:

•Repetition
•Redundancy
•Ambiguity
•Exaggeration

These are common annoyances for editors

 Language Editing Services

Your manuscript is precious, invest in it

• Specialist scientific and medical editing services are

commercially available to polish the language in your
manuscript prior to journal submission
• Rates start from $8 per page

More information can be found on the Elsevier website at:

http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/languagepolishing
 Language Editing Services

Recommended companies include:

- Edanz Editing
- Liwen Bianji
- International Science Editing
- Asia Science Editing
- SPI Publisher Services
- Diacritech Language Editing Service

Use of an English-language editing service listed here is

not mandatory, and will not guarantee acceptance for
publication in Elsevier journals
Writing a quality manuscript

• Technical details
 Abbreviations
• Define non-standard abbreviations on first use in both
the abstract and the main text
• Check the Guide for Authors for a list of standard
abbreviations that don’t need defining
• Don’t abbreviate terms used only once or twice in the
entire manuscript – spell these out in full
• Acronyms: capitals not required in the definition unless
a proper noun or start of a sentence

ubiquitin proteasome system (UPS)

NOT
Ubiquitin Proteasome System (UPS)
 Cover letter

• This is your chance to speak to the editor

directly
• Keep it brief, but convey the particular
importance of your manuscript to the journal
• Suggest potential reviewers
This is your opportunity to convince the journal
editor that they should publish your study, so it
is worth investing time at this stage
 Cover letter

Include:
• Editor name – Address to journal editor, not generic
• First sentence – provide title, author list and journal
name
• Briefly describe:
• your research area and track record
• the main findings of your research
• the significance of your research
• Confirm the originality of the submission
• Confirm that there are no competing financial interests
 Revisions and
Response to Reviewers
 Final checks

Revision before submission can prevent early rejection

What can I do to ensure my paper is in the best
possible state prior to submission?

•Ask colleagues to take a look and be critical

•Check that everything meets the requirements set out in
the Guide for Authors – again!
•Check that the scope of the paper is appropriate for the
selected journal – change journal rather than submit
inappropriately
 Final checks

Revision before submission can prevent early rejection

What can I do to ensure my paper is in the best
possible state prior to submission?

•If necessary, get a colleague or approved editing

service to improve the language and ensure that the
manuscript possesses the three “C”s
•Ensure that the literature cited is balanced and that the
aims and purpose of the study, and the significance of
the results, are clear
•Use a spellchecker
 Post-referee revision

Carefully study the reviewers’ comments and prepare a

detailed letter of response

•Respond to all points; even if you disagree with a

reviewer, provide a polite, scientifically solid rebuttal rather
than ignore their comment
•Provide page and line numbers when referring to
revisions made in the manuscript
•Perform additional calculations, computations, or
experiments if required; these usually serve to make the
final paper stronger
 Post-referee revision

The reviewer is clearly ignorant of the work of

Bonifaci et al. (2008) showing that the electric field
strength in the ionization zone of the burned corona is
less than the space charge free field before the
corona onset….

Thank you for your comment. However, we feel that

the assumption in our model is supported by recent
work by Bonifaci et al. (2008), who showed that the
electric field strength in the ionization zone of the
burned corona is less than the space charge free field
before the corona onset
 Post-referee revision

•State specifically what changes you have made to

address the reviewers’ comments, mentioning the page
and line numbers where changes have been made
•Avoid repeating the same response over and over; if a
similar comment is made by multiple people explain your
position once and refer back to your earlier response in
responses to other reviewers or the editor
 Post-referee revision
Clearly differentiate responses from reviewers’
comments by using a different font style
Reviewer’s Comments: It would also be good to acknowledge that
geographic routing as you describe it is not a complete routing
solution for wireless networks, except for applications that address a
region rather than a particular node. Routing between nodes
requires further machinery, which detracts from the benefits of
geographic routing, and which I don't believe you have made
practical.
Author’s reply: We agree and will add an appropriate caveat. Note
that for data-centric storage (name-based exact-match and range
queries for sensed events), the storage and query processing
mechanisms "natively" address packets geographically – without a
"node-to-location" database.
Dr. Ramesh Govindan,
Professor, Computer Science Department, University of Southern California
 Accepting rejection

Don’t take it personally!

•Try to understand why the paper has been rejected

•Evaluate honestly – will your paper meet the journal’s
requirements with the addition of more data or is another
journal more appropriate?
•Don’t resubmit elsewhere without significant revisions
addressing the reasons for rejection and checking the new
Guide for Authors
 Accepting rejection

•Suggested strategy for submitting elsewhere:

•In your cover letter, declare that the paper was

rejected and name the journal
•Include the referees’ reports and show how each
comment has been addressed
•Explain why you are submitting the paper to this
journal; is it a more appropriate journal?
Ethical Issues
Unethical behavior “can earn rejection and even a
ban from publishing in the journal”
Terry M. Phillips, Editor, Journal of Chromatography B

Unethical behavior includes:

•Multiple submissions
•Redundant publications
•Plagiarism
•Data fabrication and falsification
•Improper use of human subjects and animals in
research
•Improper author contribution
 Multiple submissions

Multiple submissions save your time but waste editors’

The editorial process of your manuscripts will be

completely stopped if the duplicated submissions are
discovered

“It is considered to be unethical…We have thrown

out a paper when an author was caught doing this.
I believe that the other journal did the same thing”

James C. Hower, Editor, International Journal of Coal

Geology
 Redundant publication

An author should not submit for consideration in

another journal a previously published paper

•Published studies do not need to be repeated

unless further confirmation is required
•Previous publication of an abstract during the
proceedings of conferences does not preclude
subsequent submission for publication, but full
disclosure should be made at the time of
submission
Redundant publication

•Re-publication of a paper in another language is

acceptable, provided that there is full and
prominent disclosure of its original source at the
time of submission
•At the time of submission, authors should disclose
details of related papers, even if in a different
language, and similar papers in press
 Plagiarism

“Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s

ideas, processes, results, or words without giving
appropriate credit, including those obtained through
confidential review of others’ research proposals
and manuscripts”
Federal Office of Science and Technology Policy,
1999
 Plagiarism

“Presenting the data or interpretations of others

without crediting them, and thereby gaining for
yourself the rewards earned by others, is theft, and it
eliminates the motivation of working scientists to
generate new data and interpretations”
Bruce Railsback, Professor, Department of Geology,
University of Georgia

For more information on plagiarism and self-plagiarism, please see:

http://facpub.stjohns.edu/~roigm/plagiarism/
 Plagiarism

Plagiarism is a serious offence that could lead to

paper rejection, academic charges and
termination of employment. It will seriously affect
your scientific reputation

DON’T DO IT!

Unacceptable paraphrasing, even with correct

citation, is considered plagiarism
 Paraphrasing
• Original (Gratz, 1982):
Bilateral vagotomy resulted in an increase in tidal
volume but a depression in respiratory frequency
such that total ventilation did not change.
• Restatement 1:
Gratz (1982) showed that bilateral vagotomy
resulted in an increase in tidal volume but a
depression in respiratory frequency such that total
ventilation did not change.

Ronald K. Gratz. Using Other’s Words and Ideas.

Department of Biological Sciences, Michigan Technological University
 Paraphrasing
• Original (Buchanan, 1996):
What makes intentionally killing a human being a moral
wrong for which the killer is to be condemned is that the
killer did this morally bad thing not inadvertently or even
negligently, but with a conscious purpose – with eyes
open and a will directed toward that very object.
• Restatement 2:
Buchanan (1996) states that we condemn a person who
intentionally kills a human being because he did a
"morally bad thing" not through negligence or accident
but with open eyes and a direct will to take that life.

Ronald K. Gratz. Using Other’s Words and Ideas.

Department of Biological Sciences, Michigan Technological University
 Data fabrication and falsification

• Fabrication is making up data or results, and recording or

reporting them
• Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment,
processes; or changing / omitting data or results such that
the research is not accurately represented in the research
record

“The most dangerous of all falsehoods is a slightly

distorted truth”
G.C. Lichtenberg (1742–1799)
 Unethical research

• Experiments on human subjects or animals should follow

related ethical standards, namely, the Helsinki Declaration
of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5)

• If doubt exists concerning the compliance of the research

with the Helsinki Declaration, authors must explain the
rationale for their approach and demonstrate approval
from the institutional review body
 Improper author contribution
Authorship credit should be based on
1. Substantial contributions to conception and design, or
acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data
2. Drafting the article or revising it critically for important
intellectual content
3. Final approval of the version to be published
Authors should meet conditions 1, 2, and 3. Those who
have participated in certain substantive aspects of the
research project should be acknowledged or listed as
contributors. Check the Guide for Authors and ICMJE
guidelines: http://www.icmje.org/
Conclusion: Getting Accepted
What gets you accepted?

Attention to details
Check and double check your work
Consider the reviews
English must be as good as possible
Presentation is important
Take your time with revision
Acknowledge those who have helped you
New, original and previously unpublished
Critically evaluate your own manuscript
Ethical rules must be obeyed

– Nigel John Cook, Editor-in-Chief, Ore Geology Reviews

http://www.Elsevier.com/authors
 Thank You
http://taiwan.elsevier.com