What is the procedure for writing a scholarly manuscript for publishing?
Got 2012 Oct 31; Adopted 2012 Dec 6 other items in PMC. It can be retraced back to 1665, when the first "modern" scholarly works were published and characterised by inconsistent forms and styles1. As a result, almost 300 years2, the UK and France launched the review procedure for scholarly scripts to make sure that the contributions meet the journal's criteria for validation and accuracy.
The number of academic periodicals and scripts has increased enormously since then, so that the number of new publications of more than 20,000 periodicals per year is well over 2,000,0001,2 at a daily frequency of 5,500. The dissemination of information and research results requires the publication of academic works and conferences.
Most of the papers presented at academic conferences, however, are usually only available in reports on conferences, although they have the capacity to be republished later as papers in peer-reviewed periodicals. In a recent Cochrane interview, only 44. 5 percent of the almost 30,000 papers were written as papers3.
There was no link between the full release and the authors' countries of provenance. Among the drivers associated with full disclosure were acceptability vs. refusal of abstract for verbal or presentation posters, acceptability for verbal presentation instead of meeting posters, "positive" results using the author's definitions of "positive", randomized research instead of conducting clinically research.
There is no doubt that the absence of the necessary writing and publication skill and expertise is also a possible element in the area of transfusion medicine, although the experts in this area are currently applying the principals and research methods that are supporting evidence-based medicine.
Three large groups of papers exist: scholarly originals, critiques and case studies. While case studies are part of the case hierarchies in evidence-based practices, albeit at a lower levels, and case studies are included in a significant portion of healthcare assessment6, this paper discusses the numerous stages involved in writing source essays and critiques with the goal of giving the readers the tools necessary to help them with the preparation, submission and successful publication of a manuscript.
Historical research in scholarly periodicals goes back to 1665, when the French "Journal des sçavans" and the English "Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society" published systematic research results for the first time7. Since then, the early structures of scholarly work have developed progressively from epistles (usually by a sole writer, with a courteous approach and contemporary address of several topics) and experiential accounts (essentially narrative and with experience and impact in chronic order) to a more fluid and fluid format characterized by an embryonal characterization of the methodologies and interpretations of the results.
Only in the second half of the nineteenth centur y was the methodology fully developped and a broad organization of scripts emerged, which is called the "theory-experiment-discussion1. In the early part of the last millennium, a progressive decline in the use of literature fell together with an increasing standardization of drafting regulations, paving the way for the official IMRAD format for the introduction, methods, results and debate of scholarly work adopted in the 1980s.
IMRAD is currently funded as a text editor for observation trials (i.e. retrospective/descriptive) and Experimental (i.e. randomized controlled) trials through the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journal, which have become the most important and recognized (of over 500 bio-medical journals) guideline for writing, publication and editorial use in the field of biomedicine in the world8.
Uniform Requirements are published by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), an advancement of the first group of journal editors who first convened in Vancouver in 1978 and then published a series of drafting policies and guidance for the delivery of manuscripts. In the opinion of the Institute, "this so-called IMPRAD-structures is not an random publishing method, but a straightforward reflection of the academic discovery processes "9.
"Long-length items may require sub-categories within some paragraphs (especially results and discussion) to illustrate their contents. It is unlikely that other kinds of items, such as case studies, critiques and leading papers, will require different formatting "9. This does not include other important and integrated parts of the item, such as the title page, abstract, acknowledgements, figures and tables/references8.
While there are often minor differences from one magazine to another, each magazine has guidelines for writers on its website, and it is important that the writers should be able to load them and follow them. This latest issue of Uniform Requirements was revised in April 2010; it is available on the website of the International Centre for Medical Documentation (ICMJE) and is an important guide for all writers who write a bio-medical manuscript.
Unfortunately, several review papers have reported shortcomings in the study reports11-15. He stresses that this can only be done through full author visibility. CONSORT's declaration was last amended in 2001 and was further edited after the 2007 session and released as CONSORT 2010, the latest release, which is available free of charge via one of the numerous links to magazines on the CONSORT website under the heading "CONSORT Declaration - Downloads "17.
This explanation comprises a check list (25 points) and a flowchart that the author can use for RCTs. Checklists refer to the contents of the title, summary, introduction, methods, results, discussion and other information. Checklists refer to the contents of the Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion and other information in the article.
Titles, writers, study designs, objectives, methods, results and conclusions. STROBE Statement provides information to help writers in improving the coverage of observer trials, facilitate study critique and interpretations, and is backed by experts, a steadily increasing number of publishers and users of bio-medical journals. STROBE checklists are best used in combination with an explanatory and elaborative paper covering each of the 22 check-list topics, providing methodical backgrounds, publishing samples of transparency in reports and free access on the STROBE Statement website under the above section on the links to the journals in which the paper was posted (PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine and Epidemiology)22.
Since reviews deal with a particular bio-medical issue in depth and warrant further research direction, they demand that the authors thoroughly examine and control the bibliography and then draw some general assertions and inferences with practicable consequences for patient care23,24. Therefore, reviews are important not only for younger doctors at the beginning of their careers, but also for leading scientists, as they are an instrument for intellectually enriching and improving research performance.
Reviewing a paper demands skills and continual skills development in line with the collection of better and more up-to-date academic references. This is why magazines often ask specialists to contribute an overview paper on a particular subject. Writers can also ask the editorial staff if they are interested in the publication of a reviewed paper on a particular, current, relevant and discussed subject.
Obviously, critiques are widely read and contributed to the influence of magazines and have become an integral part of the academic writing world. There are three main literary reviews: narratives (including editing, commentary and narratives or non-systematic narratives), quality systemic and quantity systemic (meta-analyses) (Table II)25.
A summary of the kinds of literary recensions. - arratives: narratives: Typical editorial essays by the publisher of the magazine or an invitees can be a story reviewer when the writer collects information on a particular subject for the reader. Usually these kinds of story recensions are usually limited to a brief, selected and closely focussed recension of only a few contributions.
An editorial may not, however, be more than the editor's commentary on a recent edition of the magazine or a recent healthcare incident and is therefore not necessarily a commentary. You can also write a commentary as a story line extension, but it is usually composed with a certain opinion25.
The research technique, as a rule, is not presented in these essays reflecting unilateral synthesis of other essays of the writer. Comments are usually less than a detailed overview paper and the writer should be an authority on the comment's area. Non- systematical story-telling revisions are extensive story-telling synthesises of already released work26.
These types of literary research report the author's results in a compressed form that summarizes the content of each paper. Writers of narratives are often recognized specialists in this area and have done their own research. Writers sometimes request narratives from certain writers to highlight certain topics.
While bibliographical research methods are an indispensable part of systematical surveys and meta-analyses, they also become an integral part of literary narratives. Organizing the source code of the body of a manuscript is best done by transforming information from the found publication into bibliographical maps with a brief explanation of the key findings, the levels of records, the strength and limits of each trial, and the relevancy to each section of the manuscript.
In addition, the legibility of a book can be enhanced by inserting some self-explanatory charts, checkboxes and illustrations that summarise key information and communicate authentic message24. Successfully conducting a story verification should have the following characteristics: be well organized, summarize the existing findings on the subject, deliver a clear signal and reach strong results based on analytical work.
Quality Systematical Surveys are a kind of literary research that use in-depth, strict and specific methodologies and are therefore a stronger evidence-based resource for medical information than narratives, case histories, case series and poorly executed coherent research. In-depth bibliographical research focussed on a specific issue or a specific objective is the special feature of a systemic examination27.
The overviews are described as quality because the integration of each study involves a summarization and criticism of the results from a systemic approach, but does not summarize the results of all the trials studied in the statistic. Quantifying a quantity systematically or meta-analysis analyses each work and summarizes the results of the trials statistically28.
Metaanalysts use all the strict methods of quality-based, systemic surveys and also collect the patient's initial patient information from each of the trials studied, collect it in a databank and compile the corresponding statistical information for this large population. On the other it can summarize very diverse trials, which is the major disadvantage of a quantitatively systemic check.
Nevertheless, well conducted and well conducted quantified systemic surveys represent the highest proof for medicinal decisions28. A recent Preferred reporting item for systemic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) declaration is aimed at improving coverage with a focus on RCTs. Composed of a check list with 27 key points for transparency in coverage and a flowchart for the stages of trial screening, the document is supported by the PRISMA declaration and elaboration document, which includes good coverage of the various audit stages29.
Another guide to report on systemic review has been issued by the Cochrane Collaboration, an intergovernmental organization that produces, maintains and releases systemic reports on the impact of healthcare measures in a standardized format. It is the examiner's own pertinent questions or hypotheses that are the joint point of departure for searching for an answer in the literature31.
The next important stage is to collect information through comprehensive research that is pertinent to the subject in question. People who review the manuscript are often peers and do not quote important papers, so the manuscript is in danger of being rejected. We recommend consulting at least two or three reliable data bases (see Table III) to help us find the most important items and landmarks.
Also, do not use contributions posted more than 10 years ago and do not just trust the abstract, but receive full-text-article. Items that are pertinent to the research subject and that are posted in the periodical in which the work is to be presented should be examined and quoted32. Finally, the bibliographic research should also be aimed at identifying recently posted items similar to those that the writer plans to publish.
Indeed, a magazine may be less interested in releasing such a manuscript unless the results mirror new or different insights. This may be a worthwhile topic to consider before you start writing, as the right selection of the magazine can influence not only the writing technique, but also the lightness of publications and the timely distribution of research.
Ejournals and OAs are the latest resource for the publication and distribution of information on the horizons of knowledge. A magazine's effect is a measurement of the mean number of quotations for current contributions to academic and sociological periodicals. The number of quotations from this periodical in the entire bio-medical body of research over a 2-year span determines the proportion.
It' also very important to study the manual for the chosen journal's writers as well. Although there is a general approach for most bio-medical periodicals, as defined by the Uniform Requirements9 of the Institute of Medical Sciences (ICMJE), the details of each periodical may vary slightly. The best thing to do is to clarify the authoring before writing a manuscript, as the order of authoring can be a problem once the document has been written.
A number of authoring policies are available, and this topic was discussed in detail in a recently released overview by Elizabeth Wager33. The majority of authoring guides for scholarly papers are more geared to creativity and intellect than to routinely or technically writing. i) make a significant contribution to the conceptualization, layout, collection, analysis and/or interpretations of the information; ii) prepare or criticize the paper for important IP contents; and iii) authorize the definitive work.
Writers are in descending order of posting and the last should be the Sr. writer or supervisor, but this conventions has never been coed. While it is recommended to indicate exact memberships and contact details, as they will be posted both on PubMed and in the magazine, it is also important to reach agreement on the appropriate writer who will have full contact to the research information and will be the future academic group1.
There are several questions of ethics, in additon to the above mentioned authorhip, which play a role in the writing of a contribution. One useful scripting algorithms for writing a scholarly manuscript is that of O'Connor and Holmquist35. In the view of these writers, the writing should begin with the preparation of numbers and spreadsheets and then continue with summaries (the concluding notes summarizing the main manuscript contribution to the scholarly community), public identity, material and methodologies, results, debate, credentials, introduction, titles and concurs.
It is the goal of this algorithms to give the manuscript the necessary support to help surmount writer's inhibition and to support scholars who are not mother-tongue Englishmen. Another and more general approach to increasing manuscript production in the early stages is to disregard all the detail that can be addressed later, such as texture, grade and orthography.
Lettering should cover the following key paragraphs of the document in the order from the first to the last: methodologies, results, discussions and introduction31,36,37. "As with any well-written history, a scholarly manuscript should have a beginning (introduction), a center (materials and methods) and an end (results). Discussing (the morality of the story) puts the report into context.
As Michael McKay rightly pointed out, "writing is not necessarily in the chronological order of the definitive documents (i.e. in IMRAD format) "39. i) a clear comprehension of the key elements of each of these chapters is crucial for the success of a scholarly manuscript; ii) the correct order of writing makes writing considerably easier; iii) the writing method can be adapted by the author on the base of both the topic they are working on and their own experiences; iv) the CONSORT16,17, STROBE21,22 or PRISMA29 declaration must be used as a guide for appropriate coverage of the nature of the study the author is working on31,32,38.
The following part of this work discusses the different parts of a manuscript in the order in which they are presented in the concluding work. The aim was to mirror the nature of the work, its innovation and its importance for the biomedicine sector with which it is concerned24. They should be clear, concise and concise, contain no parlance or non-standardised and inexplicable acronyms, indicate the purposes of the survey and indicate the question(s) raised and not the conclusions.
The more precise and precise the manuscript's descriptions, the greater the chances of the manuscript being quoted38. Preferably, the heading of the systemic reviews should be based on the participant's approaches, intervention, comparison, results and trial designs (PICOS) and should contain the concepts "systematic review", "meta-analysis" or the two41.
Key words allow you to search the article's data base and should be provided in accordance with the author's brief. Carefully selected from the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) in the National Library of Medicine (NLM) checked glossary thesaurus for the indexation of PubMed items significantly increased the odds the paper is accessed and quoted by other writers42.
This should be a short synopsis of the manuscript and not longer than indicated in the author's guide. As an example, originals sent to BLOD Transfusion need a maximum of 2,000 chars or less (including spaces) to summarize: Background, materials and methodologies, results, discussion43. Methodologies must be summarized without too many detail; the main results must be clearly indicated, followed by one or two sentences highlighting the main impacts of the document, which must be in line with the conclusion of the survey without exaggerating its possible relevance.
The present form should be used in the abstracts to point to facts already in place in the fields, while the results of the recent survey should be treated in the past form. In the first section, the first should address the problems or problems that define the backgrounds of the survey and the contexts, relevancy or type of problems, the issue or objective (which is known) using the present form23,37.
In the last section, the reason, theory, principal aim or aim should be given in order to clearly identify the theory to be discussed and the issues discussed in the manuscript (why the survey was conducted). Many research activities, especially backward-looking trials, do not begin at the beginning (with the initial discovery of a particular issue, followed by methodologies and gathering data), but begin with the gathering of information without first having to identify a particular issue, which must always be determined before the beginning of the letter38.
Dates or findings from the trial should not be presented or expected in the introductory part. The writing of the introductory letter at the end of the trial avoids any blockage and it is simpler after the methodologies, results and discussions have been finalized. This part of the method is one of the most important parts of a scholarly manuscript and aims to provide the readers with all the necessary information to reproduce the work.
In this section, the two main features are a clear representation of the trial designs and the definition and definition of the measuring parameter used to assess the purposes of the trial. Therefore, it is necessary to give a thorough explanatory note of the research methodologies, which includes research designs, research surveys, analytical methods and justification.
Descriptions of the randomization or other group allocation method used should be provided, as should predefined initial and subsequent results and other variable definitions. Under the Uniform Requirements9, in the case of experimental/clinical reporting that involves volunteer/patient involvement, the author must supply information on approval by the committee on institutions, regulations and ethics, patient and volunteer agreement after clarification and compliance with the latest version of the Helsinki Declaration45.
In the notification of tests on livestock, the author should indicate which authorities have given authorisation for the tests on animals9. Any measurement described by the author in the "Materials and Methods" section should be presented in the "Results" section in the same order as in this part35. In this section, only information should be included, not backgrounds or methodologies or results of measurement not described in the Methods2 section.
Referrals in this section should be restricted to the methodologies described in the manuscript or similar methodologies described in the lit. The section should be constructed as if it were a stream of naturally occurring inspiration and should begin with a straightforward message about the main results and their consistency with the goals of the studies formulated in the last section of the Intro.
In this case, the strength and limits of research and what the survey contributes to up-to-date research should be discussed42. Using logic argument, the author should transform the relationships of the factors mentioned in the results section into mechanical interpretation of cause and effect using the present form, since these relationships currently exist35.
A further frequent error is to criticize the research described in the manuscript by emphasizing the limits of the work. It is not only the strength of a scholarly essay that increases its value, but also the weaknesses of the proofs presented in the work. Writers should also refrain from over-generalizing the implication of the trial and recall that except for RCT there can only be verifiable assumptions and observable association, rather than strong cause and effect evidence42.
Writers should therefore attach a declaration of the kind of sponsorship they may have obtained from the sponsor or the sponsor's agent and the name of all persons who have provided any kind of help, writing aid, editing aid or any kind of involvement in writing the manuscript. When a manuscript is submitted by a group, the respective writer should clearly indicate the favorite quote and indicate all single writers as well as the group name.
NLM will index the group name and the name of the people that the group has designated as directly in charge of the manuscript; it will also list the employee name if they are included in the acknowledgments "9.
Referrals to reviews are an effective way to lead the reader to a collection of books, but they do not always exactly mirror the work. Contributions that have been adopted but not yet made public are to be described as "in the press" or "in brief" and information from submissions but not yet approved are to be quoted in the text as "unpublished observations".
It is also important to recall that "the author is liable for ensuring that none of the links quotes withdrawn items, except in connection with the reference to the withdrawal. In MEDLINE, writers can use the following keyword to help identifying withdrawn items, where pt is the publisher style in parentheses:
A manuscript may in some cases only be refused after it has undergone an in-house and drafting check. It can be a challenge to revise a manuscript and respond successfully to reviewers' and editors' commentaries. Few were released to answer the question of the effective revision of a manuscript after the (small or large) commentaries of the reviewer.
Table IV lists the ten guidelines proposed by the writer for the revision of a manuscript. Tens principals for the revision of a manuscript proposed by James M. Provenzale46. A lot of scripts are not made public just because the writers have not followed the few easy guidelines necessary to make a good one. It is our sincere thanks that this document offers the fundamental stages of drafting a manuscript and an overview of the processes required to publish a manuscript.
Nonetheless, in Tab. 7 we summarize the ten basic ten principals that we strongly advise to increase the probability of publishing a scholarly manuscript. Tens principals to increase the probability of publishing a scholarly manuscript, proposed by James M. Provenzale47. Authors do not explain any conflict of interest.
Historical and technical journals: Origin and development of the scientific and technical press 1665-1790. Standardized requirements for manuscripts for biomedical journals.