Structure of a Paper
Scientific writing follows a rigid structure –
a format developed over hundreds of years
Consequently, a paper can be read at several
levels:
– Some people just will refer to the title
– Others may read only the title and abstract
– Others will read the paper for a deeper
understanding
Components of a Paper
Section Purpose
Title Clearly describes contents
Authors Ensures recognition for the writer(s)
Abstract Describes what was done
Ensures the article is correctly identified
Key Words (some journals)
in abstracting and indexing services
Introduction Explains the problem
Methods Explains how the data were collected
Results Describes what was discovered
Discussion Discusses the implications of the findings
Ensures those who helped in the research
Acknowledgements
are recognised
Ensures previously published work is
References
recognised
Provides supplemental data for the expert
Appendices (some journals)
reader
Authors Listing
• ONLY include those who have made an
intellectual contribution to the research
• OR those who will publicly defend the data and
conclusions, and who have approved the final
version
• Order of the names of the authors can vary from
discipline to discipline
– In some fields, the corresponding author’s
name appears first
Title
• Describes the paper’s content clearly and
precisely including keywords
• Is the advertisement for the article
• Do not use abbreviations and jargon
• Search engines/indexing databases
depend on the accuracy of the title - since
they use the keywords to identify relevant
articles
Abstract
• Briefly summarize (often 150 words) - the
problem, the method, the results, and the
conclusions so that
– The reader can decide whether or not to read
the whole article
• Together, the title and the abstract should stand
on their own
• Many authors write the abstract last so that it
accurately reflects the content of the paper
See: The Structured Abstract: An Essential Tool for Research
http://research.mlanet.org/structured_abstract.html
Introduction
• Clearly state the:
– Problem being investigated
– Background that explains the problem
– Reasons for conducting the research
• Summarize relevant research to provide context
• State how your work differs from published work
• Identify the questions you are answering
• Explain what other findings, if any, you are challenging
or extending
• Briefly describe the experiment, hypothesis(es),
research question(s); general experimental design or
method
Methods
• Provide the reader enough details so they can
understand and replicate your research
• Explain how you studied the problem, identify the
procedures you followed, and order these
chronologically where possible
• Explain new methodology in detail; otherwise name
the method and cite the previously published work
• Include the frequency of observations, what types of
data were recorded, etc.
• Be precise in describing measurements and include
errors of measurement or research design limits
Gerald had begun to think that his
methodology was too detailed.
Results
• Objectively present your findings, and explain
what was found
• Show that your new results are contributing to
the body of scientific knowledge
• Follow a logical sequence based on the tables
and figures presenting the findings to answer the
question or hypothesis
• Figures should have a brief description (a
legend), providing the reader sufficient
information to know how the data were produced
Discussion/Conclusion
• Describe what your results mean in context of
what was already known about the subject
• Indicate how the results relate to expectations
and to the literature previously cited
• Explain how the research has moved the body of
scientific knowledge forward
• Do not extend your conclusions beyond what is
directly supported by your results - avoid undue
speculation
• Outline the next steps for further study
References
• Whenever you draw upon previously published
work, you must acknowledge the source
• Any information not from your experiment and not
‘common knowledge’ should be recognized by a
citation
• How references are presented varies
considerably - refer to notes for authors for the
specific journal
• Avoid references that are difficult to find
• Avoid listing related references that were not
important to the study
Harvard Reference Style
Uses the author's name and date of
publication in the body of the text, and the
bibliography is given alphabetically by
author
– Adams, A.B. (1983a) Article title: subtitle.
Journal Title 46 (Suppl. 2), 617-619
– Adams, A.B. (1983b) Book Title. Publisher,
New York.
– Bennett, W.P., Hoskins, M.A., Brady, F.P. et al.
(1993) Article title. Journal Title 334 , 31-35.
Vancouver Reference Style
Uses a number series to indicate references;
bibliographies list these in numerical order as
they appear in the text
1. Adams, A.B. (1983) Article title: subtitle.
Journal Title 46 (Suppl. 2), 617-619.
2. Lessells, D.E. (1989) Chapter title. In: Arnold,
J.R. & Davies, G.H.B. (eds.) Book Title , 3rd edn.
Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp. 32-
68.
3. Bennett, W.P., Hoskins, M.A., Brady, F.P. et al.
(1993) Article title. Journal Title 334 , 31-35.
Summaries/Examples of Styles
• International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Uniform
Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical
Journals: Sample References
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/uniform_requirements.html
• How to Cite References/Vancouver Style, Murdoch
University, Australia
http://wwwlib.murdoch.edu.au/find/citation/vancouver.html
• Blackwell Publishing Online/References
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/authors/reference_text.asp
• BMA Reference Styles
http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/LIBReferenceStyles
Jane suddenly realised that her reference
list had too many self citations…
Article Submission
• Select your journal carefully
• Read the aims and scope
• Think about your target audience and the level
of your work – do you have a realistic chance of
being accepted?
• Follow the guidelines in the notes for authors
and include everything they ask – it makes the
editor’s job easier…
• Articles should not be submitted to more than
one journal at a time
See: Instructions to Authors in Health Sciences
http://mulford.mco.edu/instr/
Online Submission
• Many publishers now offer a completely
electronic submission process
• Article is submitted online and all of the
review procedure also happens online
• Speeds up the editorial process
• Is invaluable for authors in low-income
countries
Author Priorities for Journal
Selection (Elsevier)
• Key (Determining) • Marginal (Qualifying)
factors factors
– Impact Factor – Experience as a referee
– Reputation
– Track record
– Access to the target
audience – Quality and colour
illustrations
– Overall editorial standard
– Publication speed – Service elements
– International coverage
– Open Access or HINARI
participating publisher
Author Priorities for Journal
Selection (INASP)
• Quality / prestige
• Collection / specialisation
• Habit / previous publication
• Speed / time delay
Journal Selection for Authors from
Low-Income Countries (discussion)
Rank on a Scale of 5:1 -
5 (very useful), 4 (somewhat useful), 3 (average),
2 (somewhat not useful), 1 (not useful)
– Impact Factor
– Reputation or quality/prestige
– Access to the target audience or specialization
– Overall editorial standard
– Publication speed
– International coverage
– Habit/previous publication
– Open Access or HINARI/AGORA/OARE
participating publisher
– Other
After Submission
• Most journal editors will make an initial decision
on a paper - to review or to reject
• Most editors appoint two referees
• Refereeing speed varies tremendously between
journals
• Authors should receive a decision of Accept,
Accept with Revision (Minor or Major), or Reject
• If a paper is rejected, most editors will write to
you explaining their decision
• After rejection, authors have the option of
submitting the paper to another journal - editor’s
suggestions should be addressed
Overview of Peer Review Process
Paper Submitted
Notification to Author
Confirmation of Receipt
Revise Accept
Initial Decision by Editor
Revision Received
Rejection Decide to Review
Revision Checked
Assign Reviewers
Reviewers Accept Invite
Reviews Completed
Paper sent to Publisher
Revise Accept Reject
Publishing Tips
Editors and reviewers are looking for original
and innovative research that will add to the field
of study; keys are:
– For research-based papers, ensure that you
have enough numbers to justify sound
statistical conclusions
– For a larger study, it may be better to produce
one important research paper, rather than a
number of average incremental papers
