TBURGER-6T1; No.of Pages 7 European Geratie Medicine 0 (2015) ex-e0% Available ontine at ScienceDirect wun sciencedirect.com ELSEVIER Elsevier Masson France EM|consulte www.em-consulke.com/en Research paper Writing a scientific articl F. Ecarnot”, M, Seronde, R. Chopard, : A step-by-step guide for beginners Schiele, N. Meneveau 43520, Deparment of Cag, Unversity Hosp Jean Nt. 3, Boulevard Hering 25000 Besancon. France Receive 2 June 2015 Deaiabeenine os desenbe ‘Many young researchers find it exttemely dificalt to write scientifie articles, and lew receive speci ‘taining i the at of presenting their research workin written format, Yet, publication is often sal for cateeravancement, Lo oblain funding, to oblain academic qualifications, o forall these geasons, We re the Basic steps to follow in writing 2 stent artile We outline che main sections that an average article should contain the elements that should appear in these sections and some pointers for 1. Background Every researcher has been face to face with ablank page at some stage of their career, wondering where to start and what to write first. Describing one's research work in a format that is comprehensible to others, and acceptable for publication is no easy task When you invest alot of time, energy and often money in ‘your research, you become intimately and emotionally invalved, Naturally, you are convinced of the value of your research, and of its importance for the scientific community. However, the subjectivity that goes hand in hand with deep involvement can ‘make it dificult to take a step back, and think clearly about how best to present the research in a clear and understandable fashion, so that others ~ likely, non experts in your field ~ can also appreciate the interest of your findings Even today, the old adage “publish or perish” remains valid Many young researchers find themselves under pressure to produce scientific publications, in order to enhance their career prospects, or to substantiate requests for funding, or to justify previous funding allocations, or as a requirement for university qualifications such as a Masters degree or doctoral thesis. Yet lten, young doctors do not have much taining, if any, in the art of| writing a scientific article. For clinicians in particular, the clinical workload can be such that research and scientific writing are seen tobe secondary activities that are not an immediate priority, and to Gowesponding author. Te: 633281 658 52; fx: 623281 668 582, Femail reser: hors cexrttunscleomte fr (Ear reerondevehsdesancon (MP Seronde) rsoparddet-derancan Chopard, ancl sleleDun- comets Seile, clas meneveautunnefcome‘e(. Menevea, ‘making the overall resule attractive and acceptable for publication 1 2015 Elseviet Masson SAS and Eutopean Union Geviatic Medicine Society, All sights reserved ‘which only small amounts of time can be devoted on an irregular basis. However, the competition is already quite flerce amongst all the good quality papers that are submitted to journals, and itis therefore of paramotint importance to get the basis right, n order {or your paper to have a chance of succeeding, Don't you think that {your work deserves to be judged on its scientific merit, rather than, be rejected for poor quality writing and messy and confusing presentation of the data? ‘With this in mind, we present here a step-by-step guide to writing a scientific article, which is not specific ta the discipline of| agetiatries/gerontology, but rather, may be applied to the vast majority of medical disciplines. We will start by outlining the main sections ofthe article, and will then describe in greater detail the main elements that should feature im each section, Finally, we will also give afew pointers forthe abstract and the title ofthe article This guide aims to help young researchers with litle experience of ‘writing to create a good quality frst draft oftheir work, which can. then be circulated to their co-authors and senior mentors for Turther refinement, with the ultimate aim of achieving publication in a scientific journal. Iris undoubtedly not exhaustive, and many ‘excellent resources can be found in the existing literatute [1-7 and online (8) 2. Getting started: things to do before you write a word A certain amount of preparatory work needs to be done before you ever write a word of your article. This background work should -enerally already have been accomplished by the time you are at the writing stage, because it also serves as background to the research project you are writing about. All the time you invest in Preparing the protocol for your project san advance on the writing http /dxdoiorg/10.1016j).eurger.2015,08.005 Please cite this article in press as: Ecarnot Feta. Writing a scientific article: A step-by-step guide for beginners. Eur Geriatr Med (2015),TBURGER-671; No. of Pages 7 ofthe article that will come out of your project. Thus, you probably ‘already performed an extensive literature review to establish the current state of knowledge on the topic, and ensure the originality of your research when developing the protocol, and this can serve for your paper. Itis helpful, when you are reviewing the literature, to take notes of important points or phrases that you intend to include in your article, with the relevant references. A software Program for managing references (either free versions of commercially available products) can be helpful for managing the large volume of references that you are likely to wade through, before sifting out the most important points Usually. you will also have the final results of the statistical analysis of your data, This will form the basis of your results Section. Some of the graphical representations of your results will serve as figutes for the atticl, soit s help to highlight the most important findings as you read through the results so that you do not forget anything important. Before starting to write, you should identity the target journalin ‘which you intend to submit your research, This will have consequences for the formatting. but more importantly, for the orientation of your writing style, since the writing must be approptiate for the type of reader you are targeting. For example ‘fe you targeting a specialist journal, where readets are expected to be experts in your field, of a general medicine journal, where readers may be experts from other disciplines? This will have implications for the amount and type of information that you must include. In addition, the editorial policy ofthe target journal should also be taken into account. For instance, ina given area of expertise, some journals favour papers reporting basic research, whereas other journals give precedence to more clinical work, The choice of the target journal depends on a range of factors, whch are beyond ‘the scope of this article. However, atthe very least, you should check that your paper falls within the scope of the journal you have chosen, 43, What are the main sections of a scientific article? ‘The vast majority of scientific journals follow the so-called IMRAD" format, ie. introduction, methods, results and discussion, Naturally, there are some exceptions to this rule, and you should always check the instructions for authors ofthe journal where you plan to submit your paper to ensure that this is indeed the recommended format. For the purposes ofthis guide, we will only discuss the IMRAD format, as itis the most widely used. Your article should thus contain (inthis order) an introduction, ‘a methods section, a results section and a discussion. Added to this ‘willbe the abstract, which is more of less a summary ofthese main sections, and of course, the title. At the end, there must be a list of bibliographic references, the tables, and the legends to any figures. Finally, there may also be some other optional sections, such as acknowledgements, conflicts of interest or authors’ contributions. ‘Below, we will discuss each of these sections in detail, outlining the main. points to keep in mind when writing them, 43.1, The introduction section ‘The introduction is of prime importance in grabbing the reader's attention (Table 1). In particular during the review process, the introduction must get the reviewer “hooked”, wanting to read more, and thinking to themselves, "How come I never ‘thought of this?”. In this section, you will thus explain why you undertook your study. what you aimed to achieve with it, and how this constitutes a useful addition tothe existing body of evidence ‘on this topic In conerete terms, you should start by explaining briefly, using appropriate references, what is already known about this subject You should then narrow the field down somewhat and identity the areas where there is still some uncertainty, citing, where appropriate. any previous (and possibly conflicting) data. This will logically lead to a description of an explicit gap in the Inowledge that your study hopes to fll. This is an essential element in justifying the utility of your work Having now ‘explained how your study is going to contribute something new ‘and useful, you should cleatly state your working hypothesis, followed by your objective(s), and very briefly, the strategy ‘implemented to achieve these goals (ble 1, Inthe background, the reasons that prompted you to undertake your research should be clear to the reader, and justified by the state of scientific knowledge with appropriate references, Itis not necessary to cite every article in the literature on the topic: a ‘careful selection of the most pertinent publications is sufficient Similarly. it is not necessary to state universal truths that may ‘seem over simplistic or eminently obvious. Yet you should try to achieve a suitable balance between relevant background informa- tion, and excessive detail. In this regard. you should keep in mind the target audience you are aiming for. This will depend on the profile of the readership of the journal in which you intend to ‘submit your research, as mentioned above. If you are targeting a specialty journal, then your background can be more detailed and technical than if you are addressing an audience of non-specialists in your fel. ‘The introduction should logically flow towards the identifica. tion of the gap in knowledge that you hope to fill. This is your ‘opportunity to state the added value of your study, or the new information that your study will yield. Will your results change clinical practice? Will they help the scientific community at large to move towards consensus on a previously controversial topic by providing hard evidence in one direction ot the other? This is your chance to make a sales pitch for your artile, m the appropriate terms, of course. As far as possible, try to avoid diverging from the subject at hnand. Every sentence should serve a purpose. Many journals have a limiton the length of the introduction, with a maximum number of “uckgiound descbing what Known onthe sleet owwiedge that your study hopes to? Cte ‘te the exact parame you plant measure (Gite he Spe of patient popula oil context We ame co deiassessevaluat mromes, but May be associated with procedure-elte No study to date has investizated che effect of Thee ae few ata to ant complications Imuttene,eeevaonalinerventon. ty http |/dxdoiorgi10.1016}).eurger.2015.08.005 Please cite this article in press as: Ecarnot Fetal Writing a scientific article: A step-by-step guide for beginners. Eur Geriatr Med (2015),BURGER-6TI; No.of Pages 7 Eerot ea Earpean Gera Medicine (2015) a > ‘words or pages allowed, so you are going to have ta stay focused, You should check the instructions fo authors of your target journal carefully for any indications regarding the appropriate length for the introduction. Inthe absence of any explicit recommendations, itis considered that the introduction should be around one to one and a hall pages. ‘The formulation of your objective is of paramount importance, and you should take the time to think about this carefully, The objective must be explicitly stated, and should inciuce the exact parameter you aim to assess, and by what means. The aim of your study as stated in the article Is the same as the aim formulated in ‘your study protocol (don’t forget ~ every reseatch project should have a written protocol before starting!) tis helpful to choose one formulation for your objective, and use the same one throughout the whole paper, ein the introduction, the results, the discussion, the abstract and even partially, in the ttle, Do not be afraid of, appearing repetitive; repetition is not necessarily a bad thing in an article, It shows the reader atleast that you know what you are talking about, and using the same terms throughout avoids any confusion, Lastly, a word about the tense to use in the introduction, For ‘many researchers, English is not their native language, and this is an additional difficulty in the writing process that needs to be overcome. You should ty to avail of any resources available to you to help you with the quality of your written English. Many latge institutions have translators or scientific writers who may be able to translate or correct your text. For those who are not lucky enotigh to have such resources at their disposal, you should look to important publications in good quality journals for examples of the desired format, Pointers fr the tense tose inthe introduction are given in Table 2 32, The methods section Te objective ofthe methods section isto describe exactly what you did, and how, in sufficient detail such that any average reader With the same resources at their disposal would be able to reproduce your study, There must be a method described for every result you intend to include in your results section ~ie,,youcannat present the results ofa test or analysis that was not mentioned in the methods. Conversely. if detals of any or all procedures have previously been published elsewhere, then a brief summary will suffice, accompanied by a reference to the relevant publication You should start by specifying the design of the study (prospectivejretrospective, randomized or non-tandomized, dou- ble-blind or open-label, controlled, crossover, factorial...)- Any choices of unusual methodology forthe design ofthe study should be justified, ether by appropriate references or guidelines, or an explanation of the specific context calling for your particular approach, Next will follow the description of whom or what you studied, ie. the study population (animals, human subjects, cells... For the vast majority of clinicians. the study population will comprise human subjects, and so, the inclusion and non-inclusion should be detailed. The procedures for identifying eligible patients should also be outlined (consultations, new admissions, daily rounds, staff meetings, case review meetings etc) It should be noted that for retrospective studies, the methods should begin with a description of the source data for the study, namely the inclusion and non-inclusion criteria and the final umber of case records andjor patients selected. However, for prospective stucies the methods should describe the inclusion and non-inclusion, but the final number of patients included is considered as a result and therefore, should be indicated in the results section, and not in the methods After describing the study population, you may proceed to describe all the methods used to measure al the major parameters recorded in your study. You must specify the primary and secondary endpoints, with the methods used to measure them. This is absolutely fundamental, since the choice of the primary ‘endpoint is critical to the success of the study. Is the sole criteria, ‘that allows you to draw formal conclusions about the outcome of, ‘the study, and thus, must be carefully selected. Again this point will already have been considered in depth during the planning phase. This underlines once again how the writing of your article is ‘greatly facilitated by proper discussion and reflection at the Planning stage of your research project. ‘Coming back to the methods, every blood test. intervention operation, questionnaire, imaging technique ete should be detailed, where necessary providing the manufacturer details, (manufacturer's name, city and country of company) for any Specific equipment or tests used. Short sentences may be used to ‘explain why each measurement was taken, Subtitles can also be useful to separate the methods section into relevant subsections, ‘eg demographic data, angiographic measures, treatment, ‘A short note regarding ethical considerations must be included {in the methods section. stating briefly that ethics committee approval was obtained for the study (or if not, explain why). You must also confirm that writen informed consent was obtained fiom all subjects, or from their next of kin, of surrogate, where appropriate. In the case of randomized clinical trials, itis also advisable to indicate that the study has been registered with an approved clinical trial database (eg, www clnicalrals gov) citing ‘the registration number, Most journals request that the name of ‘the ethics committee and the date of approval be specified, and some may even require the file number tobe given. There may also be varying recommendations about where to include all this information. Again, refer to the instructions for authors of your target journal for guidance. Lastly, the final paragraph of the methods section should detail the statistical analysis. Standard statements about the presenta- tion of the data should come first; for example, quantitative, normally-distributed data are presented as means standard deviation, or median interquartile range] for non-normally distrib- ‘uted data, and qualitative data as number (percentage). Then, the specifi statistical approaches used should be listed - which test for ‘which type of variable; type of multivariate analysis and the variables, Sugceston for the tense to se wen sting your intrediton secon To ceseve someting tat has bot appened yet To formulate your hypthess esea psec, at tenee for et verb eras aru i . We hypothesized that dru A increases the isk of Deed http |/dxdoiorg/10.1016j).eurger.2015,08.005 Please cite this article in press as: Ecarnot Fetal. Writing a scientific article: A step-by-step guide for beginners. Eur Geriatr Med (2015),TBURGER-671; No. of Pages 7 included init; approach used for survival analysis... The sample size Justfieation canbe included here, he working hypothesis for the feequency of the outcome and its variance, the difference you ‘expect to observe, and the alpha and beta risks used for your ‘aleulations. The level of significance for the analyse, as well as the software used shotld also be included. Any planned sub-group analyses should be detailed in this paragraph, in order to avoid Potential criticisms about post hoc studies in non-predefined subgroups, Ir must be remembered that planned subgroup analyses have an impact on the calculation of the sample size, and the use of| multiple analyses may require Bonferron's correction to ensure that the alpha risk is not inflated, These considerations ~ again, having previously been worked out during the development ofthe project ~ ‘ust be detailed in the statistical analysis section Ifyou are suitably qualified in methodology and statistis, then this Section will not pose any problem. f you are less at ease with statistics, your project undoubtedly had methodological support from a qualifieé methodologist andjor statistician, so you may solicit their contribution for this section ofthe manuscript in order to ensure accuracy and exhaustiveness A suggested lst of items to be covered in the methods section for retrospective and prospective studies is given in Table 2 As regards the tense to use for your writing, the methods should mainly be described using the past (imperfect) tense, ie. we performed, we recorded, we measured, we tested... The past- perfect tense should be used to describe events occurring before ‘your study, ie. ‘when thrombolysis had failed, we initiated 23.3, The results section ‘The aim ofthe results section is to describe what you observed. ‘without commentary or discussion. It is no longer necessary to describe the methods; this has already been done in the methods section, so just give the result. The reader will remember what methods were used ifthey read the methods section attentively. It is also unnecessary to comment, or interpret, so phrases such as surprisingly..." or “interestingly”... are generally deemed to be jut of place in the results section, You must describe a result for every method that was outlined in the methods section, and to make the paper easier to follow and read, itis good practice to present the results in the same order as the methods Similarly, use of subtitles (again, the same ones as used inthe methods section), can help to break down the results into easy-to-follow sections ‘Atypical paragraph of results should statt by recalling the type of analysis (eg. “QCA analysis revealed that.."), then detail the results observed, referring to the relevant tables or figures (eg the number of lesions was significantly higher in group A compared to group 8"). As forthe methods, the results should be presented using the past (imperfect) tense: e, “serum creatinine ‘was correlated with glomerular filtration rate Stggtte is ftems to be included in the metoes section or. etenpecive dy Prospective sudy Ethical considerations (ehics committe approval, name of co Secondary endpolas Soutes) of study data Subgroups i ay) ste, Lente Randomization procedure Amajor question for many researchers when wating the results sectionis whether to describe the results inthe text, or use a table of figure. While there are no strict rules for this.in general, results that caneasily be described inone ortwo lines can be written in the text Tables should be used for data such as baseline characteristics, outcomes, treatments, where the same variables are being. described for two or more groups. Tables also generally contain ‘the mostimportant results, and on their own, should be sufficient to sive the reader a clear idea of your findings. Figures are useful in ‘cases where the source dataiseither too complex for presentationor ‘not easily interpretable. Relationships and trends are amenable to ‘graphical presentation in figures. There may be a limit to the total number of illustrations (figures and tables) that you are allowed. depending on the target journal. so again, check for guidance before including too many. Pay attention also not to include too many illustrations, so that they donot lose their interest, and above all, do, not repeat data inthe text that already appears in a table or figure. 34, The discusion section This discussion is where you interpret and explain the significance of your results, and how they fit into the wider Picture of what has already been observed and reported on the same topic. The discussion should start with a brief recap of the main findings of your study, preferably using the same formulation 4 that used for the primary objective (inthe introduction) and the primary endpoint (in the methods). This can be followed by the interpretation of your results. Pay attention when interpreting not to simply repeat the results or at the other end of the seale, not to ‘over-interpret. You should present your findings factually; afterall, thisisa scientific article, nota prose navel. For example, ifyou state in your results that “After administration of drug X20 out of 25 patients experienced intracranial bleeding”, then it is not Accurate to indicate in the discussion that "BOX of patients who receive drug X have intracranial hemorrhage”, This is a subtle shift in interpretation that belies that original data. ft would be more accurate, for example, co suggest that “our results indicate that drug X may have significant adverse effects Putting your results in perspective with other reports is an ‘important part ofthe discussion. How do your results compare to other reports in the literature? If your findings are different, do you have any plausible explanations? What are the possible disere- ppancies in circumstances, populations or approaches that may explain why you observed what you observed? Any particularly surprising of interesting findings should be discussed and Potential explanations put forward. Can your findings be ‘extrapolated to other contexts or populations, and if not, why not? If multiple analyses or interventions were performed, you should go beyond focusing on individual results to explain what, the overall significance of the results is, when all tests or analyses are taken together In doing this, you will naturally want to describe what other authors have reported in similar contexts, in order to compare to your own findings. Remember, it pays ta be diplomatic when criticizing the work of others. Instead of pointing aut weaknesses in other people's work. reformulate so as to present the strong, points of your own work - the implication will be obvious, without you having to explicitly criticize your peers’ publications. For ‘example, instead of asserting that “Smith's study was underpow- fered’, itis helpful to use a softer tone and a more precautions formulation, such as "Smith's study may have been underpow- cred, or better yet, "Our study had sufficient statistical power to detect”..Inthe context of a direct comparison this will implicitly imply to the reader that Smith's study may not have had sufficient power, For readers whose native language is not English, you should exercise caution when paraphrasing in order not to change http |/dxdoiorgi10.1016}).eurger.2015.08.005 Please cite this article in press as: Ecarnot Fetal Writing a scientific article: A step-by-step guide for beginners. Eur Geriatr Med (2015),TBURGER-6T1; No.of Pages 7 Eerot eal European Gera Meine (2015) ck s the emphasis of the sentence. The order in which the results or elements of discussion are mentioned may subtly move the emphasis away from that originally intended by the other author Here again, careful re-reading by co-authors and senior mentors, or ‘members of your publications department (if you have one), will help to avoid these pitfalls, ‘What are the novel findings of your study? Undertining how ‘your findings yield new evidence or anew contribution tothe state of knowledge will substantiate the importance of your paper, and its added value for the literature, as opposed to being "just another paper” on 2 “worn-out topic. In this regard, you can discuss ‘whether or not your paper has succeeded in filing the “gap in knowledge” that you justified in the introduction. Do not be afraid to write an article reporting negative results. A well-conducted study that does not yield positive results is always useful contribution to the current body of evidence, and you may suitably discuss what the repercussions of this may be. For example, it may serve to advance knowledge in the field by calling into question widely held ideas, or by challenging. previous findings, or by reinforcing a small body of conflictual data that may Previously have been considered merely “anecdotal”. As long as your study has been well designed and conducted appropriately. there iso reason to believe that your findings are not valid, even i they are negative. In practical terms, you may indicate how your results are likely to influence practice, or the state of knowledge. Far example, will ‘your results sway the general opinion one way or the other? You may also indicate any potential avenues for future research, particularly new hypotheses that may have been generated by observations on your secondary objectives, Finally, a short paragraph outlining the strengtis and limitations of your study is useful. n particular, enumerating your limitations has several advantages. Firstly, i allows the reviewers to see that you are aware of your own shortcomings. and secondly. it provides an ‘opportunity for you to defend yourself on these points, why the supposed limitation may not be so negative a 35. The abstract ‘The abstract is a short summary of the article in afew sections (usually background, methods, results, conclusion), It is used for feferencing purposes in online bibliographic databases (such as PubMed), and therefore should form an independent unit that is comprehensible as a stand-alone text, without the need to refer to Man plats to keepin mind when writing the abstract. ‘the full text. eis also usually the fistitem that a potential reviewer will see when being invited to review your paper for publication in ‘journal. Therefore, its of paramount important that the abstract be succinet, but informative and attractive, to give the potential reader a foretaste of the main information, and incite the desire to read the full paper. Itis the quintessential marketing tool for your ‘work, s0 itis worth devoting some time and special thought to its preparation, ‘There are a few main points to remember forthe preparation of, the abstract, but space is limited, so you must keep it short. The ‘main pointers for the abstract are outlined in Table 4, If you have ‘given sufficient time and thought to preparing your project, and ‘waiting the resulting article, the preparation ofthe abstract should not be time-consuming. You wall easily find a sentence or two in the introduction that can be re-used in the abstract (perhaps with some shortening necessary). Similarly, the results will be mainly copy-and-pasted from the results section of the article. The conclusion can be formulated as the main take-home message t0 ‘come autt of your work, Indeed, the hardest part ofthe abstract is, ‘often shortening it sufficiently to fit with the word limit of your target journal 36, The ttle Last but certainly not leas, isthe title of your article. The title should contain keywords to reflect the main issues in your article It should also awaken the potential reader's interest, and incite in ‘them the desire to read your work in full, Remember that people searching for publications on a particular topic will generally be using PubMed/Medline or other online repositories, and therefore, {your title must contain the principal terms and keywords so that it ‘ean easily be identified through PubMed. If the title is badly Tormulated, your work will not be easly identifiable, and will never be listed in other peoples’ search results, with the result that yout paper will never be cited by others since they did not find it or read it, Once your title is identified and listed among dozens, if not hundreds of other papers on the same topic, it should distinguish itself rom other articles by specifying how your article contributes to the literature or fills a gap in knowledge, This may sound like a tall order forust a plain ttle. buti’s nota hard asit sounds. Some pointers for formulating the title are given in Table 5. You should look at the titles of papers in highly reputed medical journals for inspiration (both general medicine journals. ‘and the most highly quoted specialty journals in your fleld), and Wackound Arie reminder of he conte and 2 brit Aatemet of te ain eDRCWE. Should be sar and To te pie Two To tice senteaes ae methods "he main method should Be outne The main ineson erento define the population State the prmary endpoint ‘Yu wl ot have room to expan al the methods in great deta stick othe aval defining rien (eal patents [> 18 yeas] with ‘Results st the main results, with means, eds ratis. p-values etc for each group. ist the result of the primary endpoint fst, fllowed by secondary Theceshoulé be no elses or mo jgerentalsatemens in the abstract Le remarks such a5 “Surprisingly, We observe. °) ang your man ndings Suc, wth perhaps a short sentence with he implications for fur resareh, http /dx.doiorg/10.1016j).eurger.2015,08.005 Please cite this article in press as: Ecarnot Feta. Writing a scientific article: A step-by-step guide for beginners. Eur Geriatr Med (2015),TBURGER-6T1; No. of Pages 7 ‘Ge te population context studied In acute myocar lfrcon/ncerediatersk pulmonary embelsnearl phase sep shock Randomised doubles. ontalled tralfererycshert sedyese-conel ray Increases ‘hen str the tite th he intervention name Commerc names shouldbe sveided snd may be constied ae net pe Int propriety ff the pharmaceuial company, ce fora parte company. AS, they ate nat Ways examples of what constitutes an efficacious title. Bear in mind that ‘your target journal may have a limit (in terms of number of words or characters) on the length of the ite, Here again, keeping it short is harder than coming up with a 4-lin tcl, 37, References ‘The reference section lists all the sources you have used as a basisto prepare your hypothesis, and build your research. Itis our ethical and professional responsibility to document your work adequately, and provide full transparency in identifying your Sources. It is also imperative to cite the sources on which your hypotheses are based, to prove that they are in fact sound, The references support your work and place it in the context of ather studies on the same topic, while at the same time providing ‘guidance for readers who would like to engage in further reading ‘on the topic Many young researchers find it hard to judge when it is necessaty to cite a teference. Basically, any idea of fact that emanates from another source (other than yourself) needs to be eservesublils fr tames a tay soups Specie recommendations may apply, depending on supported by a reference. However, universal truths or facts that xre widely established do not need to be referenced (eg ‘cardiovascular disease is very common, or cancer is a major cause ‘of death), However, ideas, or more particularly phrases or names that were coined by someone else do need to be referenced (e.g patients with the “McConnell Sign” ~ The paper by McConnell describing the sign should be cited here. Or, patients were classified according to the BARC criteria ~ the paper describing the BARC criteria should be cited here) When citing references, apart {rom specific papers that give their name to a sign of classification system as in the examples above, you should give precedence to articles published in English- language, peer-reviewed journals. Citing sections from published ‘books is also acceptable, but you must be very specific and list the ‘exact names and titles of the chapter concerned. with the page numbers, and the names of the authors andor editors ofthe book, ‘with its publication details. Internet sites should be avoided where possible, as should personal communications and unpublished data. If you have several possible references, you may prefer to choose the most Title citing Drug/intervention, Context, Dé Use subtitles sparingly for study group names 7 & Main Fi [introduction |} Discussion References} ig. 1. Summary of basi guideline egreing the test include in ech set ‘Abstract: Comprehensible by itself Introduction, methods, results, conclusion. ‘plain cet sate of aroutae, wth elerences See pine at yo uit You say Outing objectives prima second). ‘Descbe a dtl what you dd and Row. Detlesletion eter for td popution. Describe al ess, ntervertions arlyse, techniques. Missed }-— pets enpat rina and sana Ethical conseratone must be otined Statist methods tobe deste in dedcted paragraph Desc ty est = __| Ave commentary and interpretation, reer Gives ret for every eth presenad in previous scion. ‘Useappropit station (ables and Figured Start with reap of your main ang. Putyourresuts in paapectv wth ott reports inthe erate. |} botainsintanc of rests and how they contibate tothe overall at of knee of how bey asrence knee. atine stents andntons {stall sures used ea as for your work. heck ecrary ofa retrences, even i eoped rom other apes of scenic manus Please cite this article in press as: Ecarnot Feta Writing a scientific article: A step-by-step guide for beginners, Eur Geriatr Med (2015), http |fdx doi org/10.1016}).eurger.2015.08.005BURGER-6TI; No.of Pages 7 Eerot ea arpean Gera Medicine (2015) , recent one, or the one published in the most reliable and reputed source journal, Try to give priority to original research articles, rather than reviews. Ifyou want to cite an idea from a paper where the authors already cite another source forthe same idea, then you should return to the original article and verify the exactitude of ‘what you are citing, then cite the original authors, not the intermediate paper. It is your responsibilty to ensure the accuracy ofall the references you cite, andi is up to you to provide suficient detail so that a potential reader can find that paper. You should chheck the accuracy of every reference yourself, even those that you have taken from other published papers. Its not the job of your chosen target journal to format your references or verify their exactitude. ‘As regards the formatting. the style in which the references should be presented will vary according to your target journal for submission. You must follow the journal's instructions for authors ‘on this point, a the risk of having your paper rejected if you do not follow the style guidelines, The work of collecting, storing and formatting references has been made considerably easier with the advent of bibliographic management software, of which there are ‘many different versions and types, both free and commercial (fee- paying). If you have such software at your éisposal, then use it. ‘When preparing your study protocol and article introduction, you should take note of useful references as you go by jotting down the phrase or idea you want to retain, with the exact reference details beside it, You may think you will remember where you saw such and such a finding, but by the time you have read dozens of papers, ‘your memory may start to flounder, and you may lose significant amounts of time reading through everything again to find one reference 4, Conclusion Overall, while writing an article from seratch may appear a daunting task for many young researchers, the process can be largely facilitated by good groundwork when preparing your research project, and a systematic approach to the writing following these simple guidelines for each section (see summary in Fig. 1). Itis worth the effort of taking enough time to prepare your article adequately, because seeing it in publication is a ‘ratifying ceward, Afterall, sharing your knowledge to the benefit, ‘of others, contributing to the body of evidence on 2 specific topic, and capitalizing on your research with print publications are all ‘components that will contribute to the success of your career, So {get out your pen and start writing: itis what your work merits! Funding None. Disclosure of interest ‘The authors deciare that they have no conflicts of interest ‘concerning this article. ‘Authors’ contributions Drafted the manuscript: FE. Reviewed for critical content and approved final content: al, References 1 Peson 0) The top 10 seaons why manuscripts i} avert Bran ayes Prepanng reports fr publiation and responding to reviewers comment | clin Epidemiol 200559 900-8. 3] Keen h. Wiig for pubbeaton.pressres. bares and support strates. la] Powell K Publis ikea pro, Nature 2010:467°873-5 31 Drecol Aina vine beatin raat agora [6| H.Serag_ HB Writing and publishing scientife papers. Gastroenterology 71 Whitehouse 5” Haw to write for publication in medical journals, Transl Res 8] Writing for books and journals:nitpsjwww publshingcarpasesevier car na accepted or ples Please cite this article in press as: Ecarnot Feta. Writing a scientific article: A step-by-step guide for beginners. Eur Geriatr Med (2015), http /dxdoiorg/10.1016j).eurger.2015,08.005