Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg (January–March 2013) 29(1):10–13

DOI 10.1007/s12055-013-0194-4

INVITED ARTICLE

How to write a good scientific research paper

and get it published
Kuberan Pushparajah & Shakeel Ahmed Qureshi

Received: 31 January 2013 / Accepted: 18 February 2013 / Published online: 4 April 2013
# Indian Association of Cardiovascular-Thoracic Surgeons 2013

Introduction medical literature on the subject is essential. It is important

to identify the key areas where your research data may add
Research is pivotal in advancing good practice and this is to the existing knowledge on the subject.
especially important in medicine. However, the true value of
any research is only realised when the results are subjected to Choose the form of manuscript
peer review and then published in journals. Apart from the
obvious advances in the medical field, establishing a research There are several formats available for submission of the
profile, supported by peer-reviewed publications, will support research material. These are usually clearly outlined by each
professional and career development. A good publication journal in the instructions for authors and are briefly
profile will also be beneficial in supporting applications for outlined below:
funding in research. Therefore a structured approach is vital,
– Original article: These are in the form of completed
and one must collect information accurately, analyse and
research studies.
interpret data critically and present the data objectively.
– Letter or short communication: These are usually
quick and early communication of significant and orig-
inal advance and areshorter than full articles.
Preparation
– Review papers: These are a summary of recent de-
velopments in a particular subject area and are usually
“Every time I have prepared a battle, I’ve been forced by invitation of the journal editors.
to admit that the plan is useless……but planning is – Case reports: These are presentations of interesting
crucial”- Dwight D. Eisenhower cases which highlight a novel understanding of the
Writing a paper starts with good preparation. The pivotal basic mechanisms for a disease, highlight an abnormality
point is identifying the question that is going to form the or present a new role for diagnostic tools or treatment
basis for the research. There are some crucial questions to options.
consider before writing a paper (Table 1). The approach to
this will be discussed in a systematic way. What is the target journal?

When choosing a journal, it is important to review the

What is the message of the research? journal brief to ensure your research paper is appropriate
for the journal. This can be done by reviewing the potential
The perspective and knowledge of the existing data should journals via available online portals. The specific aims and
be borne in mind. A thorough search of the published objectives of the journals are usually stated clearly.

K. Pushparajah : S. A. Qureshi (*) Authorship

Department of Congenital Heart Disease,
Evelina Children’s Hospital, Westminster Bridge Road,
London SE1 7EH, UK An often-overlooked aspect to be considered at the start of
e-mail: [email protected] the research is agreeing on authorship within the research
Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg (January–March 2013) 29(1):10–13 11

Table 1 Questions to address in planning research Table 2 Structure of the paper for submission

1) What is the message? • Title

2) Is it worth writing and spreading the message? • Agreed authorship and the order of the authors
3) Has the work been presented or published previously by yourself or • Disclaimers, if any
others? • Abstract
4) Who is the target audience for the paper? • Keywords
5) What is the format? • Main text (IMRaD): Introduction. Methods, Results, Discussion and
6) What is the target journal? Conclusions
• Acknowledgements
• References
• Supplementary material
team. This identifies all stakeholders in the publication
and allows for appropriate distribution of tasks as well
as avoiding problems of authorship in the future. There Introduction
are clear guidelines for authorship, which are outlined
below. The background should be limited to no more than 3–4 short
The journal authorship statement is now more inclusive. paragraphs and should define what is known and what is not
Authorship credit should be based on criteria according to known about the research question. Caution should be
the Vancouver Group convention. All three criteria listed exercised not to bore the readers and the temptation to
below should be fulfilled. The authors should: overload this section with an extended review should be
1) Generate at least part of the intellectual content. avoided. The references used here should be targeted. The
research question should be stated clearly in the last para-
& Conception or design of the work graph of the introduction and should underline why this
& Data analysis and interpretation question is important.
2) Draft, critically review or revise the intellectual content.
3) Approve the final version to be submitted.
Methods

Writing the research paper This section should include a description of the inclusion and
exclusion criteria, the intervention andthe outcome measures.
When writing the research paper, it is important to be References should be included for standard methods. The
concise. It is worthwhile writing down two to three key ethical issue and ethics permissions should be fully explained.
points of the paper and then summarizing it in one or two
sentences. You should be able to describe this to a colleague
in 1 minute and get feedback. If there are several major Results
findings and messages, it may be better to report these in
different papers, if they are not needed to support each other. This section should include the basic descriptive data, with
It is essential to use correct grammar—adhere to standard text for the tables and evidence and figures for the high-
rules for subject, verb and use of pronouns. Always use lights. It is always best to avoid overloading the text by
scientific names, proper scientific citation formats and using tables and figures, where appropriate. There should be
metric measurements. a clear summary of the statistical methods used, and confi-
There is a clear structure to adhere to when writing the dence intervals for continuous data should be included.
paper [1] (Tables 2 and 3). These are defined in by the Many authors tend to start a discussion in the Results
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors [2]. sections, which may lead to rejection of the paper. Another
common mistake involves differences in the results in the
Title of the paper
Table 3 IMRaD format of paper writing
The wording in the title is used by databases and informa- • Introduction—What is the question being asked and why?
tion retrieval services and so the title should be accurate, • Materials and methods—How the question was investigated
informative, clear and concise to make it easier to dissem- • Results—What are the findings of the study?
inate and retrieve information. It should communicate (and)
the subject, the context and highlight the main findings • Discussion—What do the findings mean?
of the research.
12 Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg (January–March 2013) 29(1):10–13

paper compared with those in the abstract or in the tables. Table 4 A checklist before submission
These should be checked meticulously. 1. Check spelling
2. Check spelling again
Discussion 3. Check grammar
4. Check if paper makes sense
Repetition of the introduction section should be avoided. 5. Do the sentences and thoughts flow? Avoid tedious repetitions.
This is an opportunity to highlight and discuss the main
6. Can you write sentences briefly again?
points of the study. Therefore this section should include a
7. Check references
statement of the principal findings of the research and a
8. Is the order of reference quotation in the text correct?
comparison with the existing knowledge in the subject.
9. Are the figures and tables accurate and clear and do they match the
There should be a description of the interpretation of the numbers in the main body of the paper?
study, with an explanation of possible mechanisms and 10. Check names and titles of all authors for spelling.
implications for clinicians, supported by the scientific data.
It is important to reflect on any unanswered questions and
identify the areas for future research. Do not discuss results Rejection
that were not presented in your data. It is vital not to
overstate any conclusions that cannot be supported by the When submitting research papers, you should be able to
results. Any attempts to do this will result in rejection of the deal with their rejection. There are several reasons for re-
paper for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. jection from a peer reviewed journal. The main one includes
A clear description of the strengths and weaknesses of the a poorly written methods section, often being too brief.
study needs to be included and discussed in relation to other Other common deficiencies include “conclusions unsupported
studies, especially in systematic reviews. by data” [3] and “results unoriginal, predictable, or trivial”.
The most common writing problem was “wordiness” [4].
Conflict of interest Analysis of rejections in Indian Pediatrics [5] found similar
deficiencies.
An author has a competing interest when he or she has an The submission may be beyond the scope of the journal.
attribute that is invisible to the reader or the editor, but Often, the manuscript is rejected by the editorial office prior
which may affect his or her judgment. This should be to peer review, due to the failure of the authors to format the
declared in the paper as it may have an effect on the paper according to the “Guidance for Authors”. It may also
judgment of the authors and may cause embarrassment, if be rejected at this stage due to suggestion of inappropriate
it became known after publication of the paper. reviewers or having an inadequate standard of English.
Manuscripts may be returned with suggestions from peer
References reviewers, however, they may still be rejected if there is an
inadequate response by the authors to the reviewers’ com-
References should be in the order that they appear in the ments or where there is a resubmission of rejected manu-
text, and be consistent with the journal requirements, which scripts without revision.
are clearly stated in instructions for authors on the journal
website. Always use the original reference, where possible Dealing with rejection
and avoid using a second or third order reference.
The authors should prepare a detailed letter of response
when dealing with a rejection from the journal. It is better
Submission to copy and paste the reviewers’ comments and address

A paper should be submitted to only one journal at a time. Table 5 Useful websites for manuscript preparation
Attention should be paid to the journal requirements and the
structure. English language usage should be checked and • Centre for Evidence Based Medicine http://www.cebm.net/
rechecked, with particular attention to the spelling and • Statistics at Square One http://www.bmj.com/collections/statsbk/index.dtl
grammar. Many excellent papers are not accepted for pub- • BMJ advice to authors http://resources.bmj.com/bmj/authors
lication, because of numerous errors of spelling, grammar • International Committee of Medical JournalEditors uniform
and the usage of English language. Most journals have an requirements for manuscriptssubmitted to biomedical journals http://
www.icmje.org/
online submission portal. Be sure to follow the instructions
• Reporting guidelines for research, at theEQUATOR network resource
carefully and pay attention to the file formats required. centre http://www.equator-network.org/
A checklist before submission is provided in (Table 4)
Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg (January–March 2013) 29(1):10–13 13

them individually, being careful not to not miss any There are several useful online resources freely available
points. You must specifically state any changes you have that provide comprehensive guidance on manuscript prepa-
made to the manuscript and where possible, include the ration. These are summarized in (Table 5).
page and line number. You must provide a scientific
response to the comments that you have accepted, or a
polite rebuttal supported by good data, if you think that Summary
the reviewer is wrong. You must be aware that you cannot
assume your manuscript will be accepted even after the Research is very satisfying and publishing your findings in a
revisions. peer-reviewed journal can be highly rewarding. Always
You should be prepared to revise your manuscript and think of what you want to say and who you want to say it
submit to an alternative journal following feedback from the to, whilst being sure your research methodology is robust
initial unsuccessful submission. and reproducible. There should be rigorous review of the
manuscript content for correct spelling and grammar. You
must be systematic in your manuscript preparation using a
Additional tips on writing standard format as per the journal requirements and be
prepared to revise your manuscript following reviewer com-
Always use a good filing system on the computer to ments. It is often worth asking a colleague not involved in
track versions of a manuscript. You can adopt new on- the research to assess your manuscript before submission.
line file-sharing systems to facilitate multi-author contri-
butions on a single document. It is essential to be careful
to maintain patient confidentiality when using non secure References
sites.
There are common pitfalls of writing including spelling, 1. Hall GM. How to Write a Paper. BMJ Books; 2011.
punctuation, structure, ambiguity, poor phrasing and length. 2. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical
The Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level can also be used to assess journals. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Ann
the grammar and level of understanding of the text. Intern Med. 1997;126:36–47.
3. Gore SM, Jones G, Thompson SG. The Lancet’s statistical review
Microsoft Word will calculate this for you automatically. process: areas for improvement by authors. Lancet. 1992;340:100–2.
Word compiles the Average number of Syllables per Word 4. Byrne DW. Common reasons for rejecting manuscripts at
(ASW)and Average Sentence Length(ASL) which it uses to medical journals: a survey of editors and peer reviewers. Sci
calculate readability ratings. The formula used = (.39 × Ed. 2000;23:39–44.
5. Gupta P, Kaur G, Sharma B, Shah D, Choudhury P. What is
ASL)+(11.8×ASW)—15.59. It is designed for US school submitted and what gets accepted in Indian Pediatrics: analysis of
level. So a score of 8.0 means that an eighth grader (about. submissions, review process, decision making and criteria for
13 year old level) can understand the document. rejection. Ind Pediatr. 2006;43:479–89.