Scientific Writing in English

Dr. Van Thai Nguyen

Junior Research Fellow
University of Tartu
Estonia
Course topics
1. Planning your writing
2. Title, Abstract, Introduction to Conclusion
3. Publication ethics
4. Choosing a journal
5. Writing a cover letter
6. Responding to reviewers
7. Style and usage of English language
1. Planning your writing
Dr. Van Thai Nguyen
Junior Research Fellow
University of Tartu
Estonia
Planning your writing
 Key messages
 Audience
 Structure
 Authors
 Timeline
 Congress/Journal
 Review process
Organizing your thoughts
 Mind mapping
 Expanding lists
 Paragraph headings
Key message(s)
 What do I want to say?
 What do I want readers to do?
Know your audience
 What will interest them?
 What do they know already?
 What do you need to explain?
Who are your first readers?
 Editors
 Reviewers
Structure: IMRaD

Introduction

Title,
Abstract, Methods References
Keywords Results

Discussion
Writing order (suggestion)
 Methods
 Results
 Introduction
 Discussion/Conclusions
 Abstract
 Title
 Keywords
 References
Writing your first draft: Dos
 Schedule your writing time
 Feel creative
 Keep your message in mind
 Follow your structure
 Write as quickly as possible. Get everything down
 Write freely

Kallestinova ED
Writing your first draft: Don'ts
 Don’t worry about checking details!
 Don’t interrupt the flow!
 Don’t allow yourself to start editing!
 2. Title, Abstract,
Introduction to Conclusion
Dr. Van Thai Nguyen
Junior Research Fellow
University of Tartu
Estonia
Methods
Method—one thing, (too) many names
 Method
 Methods
 Methodology
 Materials and Methods
 Methods and Materials
 Experimental procedures
What does Method do?
 Provide sufficient information so that readers can easily
understand the method used
 Allows trials to be repeated
 Readers can judge:
oValidity
oCredibility of the results
Elements and function
 Ethical issues
 Subjects (Participants)/Materials
 Location
 Procedure
 Data analysis
Style
 Use the past tense
 Use the active voice where possible
 The passive voice can be useful

 E.g.
oWe measured …
oI measured …
oBlood pressure was measured at 4, 8, and 12 hours
What to include
 Details necessary to judge validity of study
 Careful description of patient population and setting
 Inclusion/exclusion criteria (so that study could be
repeated)
 Anything unusual
What to exclude
 Outcome measurements you do NOT plan to report in the
Results section
 Outcomes you plan to report in a separate paper
 Justification of methods
Results
What does Result do?
 What you found
 What is new and significant about the contribution of the
paper to the field
 Readers must be able to distinguish what you found
from what you think
Elements
 Text
 Tables
 Figures: illustrations, pictures, graphs
 Supplementary material
oVideos
oAudios, podcasts
oDatasets
Dos
 Keep your message in mind
 Round-up to sensible decimal places
 Write main conclusions
 Keep tables & figures on separate sheets (at end)
 Use past tense
 Journals prefer tables to figures
Don’ts
 Don’t include everything you measured!
 Don't omit results that don't “fit”
Introduction
What does Introduction do?
 Answer the question: “WHY did you do this study?”
 “to provide the rationale for the paper, moving from
general discussion of the topic to the particular question
or hypothesis being investigated” (Swales and Feak, 2004:
156)
 “to attract interest in the topic – and hence readers”
(Swales and Feak, 2004: 156)
In Introduction
 The work of OTHERS (or what is known about the world)
is primary
 Your OWN work is secondary
Three moves in Introduction (Swales)
 Move 1: Establishing a research territory
 Move 2: Establishing a niche
 Move 3: Occupying the niche
Discussion
What does Discussion do?
 Answer the question “What do the results mean?”
Questions about Discussion
 Does the journal combine results/discussion or separate?
(or other combinations)?
 Does it follow with a separate Conclusion?
 If so, would your paper benefit from long discussions?
 Does the discussion section have headings and
subheadings?
Common elements
 A reference to the main purpose or hypothesis or a
summary of the main activity of the study
 A restatement or review of the most important findings in order of
significance
 Explanation of the findings (supported by references to relevant
literature) and/or speculations about the findings (supported by
literature)
 Limitations of the study that restrict the extent to which the findings can
be generalized beyond the study conditions
 Implications of the study
 Generalization from the results
 Recommendations for future research and/or practical applications
Dos
 Remember your message
 Be honest/realistic
 Face up to shortcomings in study design
 Cite relevant references
 Suggest future work
Don’ts
 Don't put any findings in the Discussion that are not in the
Results
 Don't put a literature review in the Introduction
 Don't repeat all your findings in the Discussion
Conclusion
Structure
1–3 main results
 Interpretation of these results
 Contribution of these results to existing knowledge
oinnovation, discovery, added-value, advance, difference
 Implication of the results and benefits
ospecific, scientific, theoretical, applied, local, global,
societal
 A look forward
Dos
 Summarize the paper’s findings and generalize their
importance
 Discuss ambiguous data, and
 Recommend further research.
 Provide closure — leaving the reader feeling satisfied that
the concepts have been fully explained.
Don’ts
 Conclude unrelated results
 Be vague
 Continue discussing
 Make general comments
 Include new arguments
Abstract
What does Abstract do?
 The only part readers might read
 The only information which is available
 Only text included in searchable databases
Elements
 Context, problem (about 25% of the Abstract,
three sentences)
 Method (25%, three sentences)
 Principal finding, its novelty and implications (50%, six
sentences)
Title
Dos
 Keep it short but understandable
 Must contain a few high-impact keywords
 Include unique aspects of the study
oMethod, population, treatment, etc.
Don’ts
 Should not be in the form of a question
 Do not use unnecessary word
oAn investigation of, An analysis of, Aspects of
 Avoid fanciful titles
 Avoid titles with complex grammatical constructions and
long strings of modifiers
 Never use abbreviations
 Never mention the results in the title
References
How many references?
 Introduction: enough references to understand the
question / hypothesis
 Discussion: enough references to understand the results
Reference management software
 EndNote
 Mendeley (Free)
 Zotero (Free)
3. Publishing ethics
Dr. Van Thai Nguyen
Junior Research Fellow
University of Tartu
Estonia
Transparency
 Who did the work?
 Who funded the work?
 Anything else we ought to know?
Enhancing transparency
 List individuals' contributions (avoid gift and ghost
authors)
 Include funding details (& role of funder in publication)
 Declare competing interests
Conflict of interest
 “a divergence between an individual’s private
interests (competing interests) and his or her
responsibilities to scientific and publishing
activities, such that a reasonable observer might
wonder if the individual’s behavior or judgment was
motivated by considerations of his or her competing
interests”
WAME
Conflict of interest
 Financial
 Non-financial
BioMed Central
Competing interests
 Financial support
oTo conduct the research
oTo prepare the article
oThe role of the sponsor(s)
• In study design
• In the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data
• In the writing of the report
• In the decision to submit the article for publication
• No involvement
Elsevier
Non-financial competing interests
 Political
 Personal
 Religious
 Ideological
 Academic
 Intellectual competing interests
BioMed Central
Multiple Submissions/
Duplicate publication/
 It is unethical to submit the same manuscript to
more than one journal at the same time
 Doing this wastes the time of editors and peer
reviewers,
 and can damage the reputation of journals if
published in more than one.
BioMed Central
Research misconduct
 Fabrication
oMaking up data or results and recording or reporting
them
 Falsification
omanipulating research materials, equipment, or
processes, or changing or omitting data or results such
that the research is not accurately represented in the
research record
 Plagiarism
The Royal Society
Plagiarism
 "to copy another person’s ideas, words or work and
pretend that they are your own"
(Oxford Dictionary)

 "When somebody presents the work of others (data,

words or theories) as if they were his/her own and
without proper acknowledgment“
(COPE )
 Authorship
The ICMJE recommends that an author should meet all four of the
following criteria:
 Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work;
or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work;
 Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual
content;
 Final approval of the version to be published;
 Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring
that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the
work are appropriately investigated and resolved.”
Authorship issues
 Gift or guest authors
oA guest author is somebody who did not contribute in
any way to the research and writing, but is included in
the author list because they confer extra credibility on
the article.
oA gift author is one who may have a slight relationship
with the study or the article, but who would not be
considered an author according to the International
Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)
guidelines.
Springer
Authorship issues
 Ghost authors
oA ghost author is a person who should be listed as an
author, but has been excluded.
oProfessional writers (often paid by commercial
sponsors) whose role is not acknowledged.
Springer
Reduce authorship issues
 Encourage a culture of ethical authorship
 Start discussing authorship when you plan your research
oDiscuss authorship at a face-to-face meeting
oContinue to discuss ideas about authorship as the project
evolves, and especially if new people get involved
oKeep a written record of your decisions
 Decide authorship before you start each article
owho will be doing what—and by when
oKeep everyone informed of any changes with a written
note
COPE
Corresponding author
 The person who receives the reviewers’ comments, the
proofs, etc. and whose contact details are printed on the
article so that readers can request reprints or contact the
research group.
First and last authors
 The first named author is generally held to have made the
greatest contribution to the research.
 Sometimes significance is attached to being the last
named author.
Acknowledgements
 All contributors who do not meet the criteria for
authorship should be listed in an “Acknowledgements”
section
 Examples
oA person who provided purely technical help or writing
assistance
oA department chair who provided only general support
BioMed Central
4. Choosing a journal
Dr. Van Thai Nguyen
Junior Research Fellow
University of Tartu
Estonia
Where to start?
 References/citations
 Libraries

 Supervisors
 Colleagues

 Journal and publisher websites

 Web search
 Web listings
Factors to consider
 Type of article
 Type of journal
 Aims and scope
 Current topics
 Readership
 Rejection rate
 Review and publication timeline
 Abstracting and indexing
Types of article
 Original research
 Review articles
 Case studies
 Perspective, opinion, and commentary
Types of journal
 Traditional (Subscription) journals
 Open access journals
 Open access (OA) vs
Traditional journals
OA journals Traditional journals
• Authors pay article- • Individuals or institutions
processing charges (APCs) pay subscription charges
• Free access to all • Access limited to
• Authors retain copyright subscribers
• Anyone can distribute, • Authors transfer copyright
copy, translate, or re- to journal
publish if source is • Need permission from the
acknowledged journal for any re-use
Article Processing Charges
Journal Charge

PLOS Medicine $3000

BMC Medicine £1880 ($2940)

BMJ Open £1350

Scientific reports £1165 ($1760)

PLOS ONE $1595

Refine your shortlist
1. Do I want to publish my article in a general-interest journal, where it can
reach a wide readership? Or will publishing in a specialist journal be a
more effective way for my research to reach the right audience?
2. Do I want to publish my work in an international journal, or is my
research region-specific?
3. Do I want to publish my article in a high-impact journal, or am I more
interested in reaching a specific group of readers?
4. What’s the journal’s peer-review policy? Am I happy for my work to be
reviewed in this way?
5. What’s the submission process?
6. Do I want publish my work in a learned society journal?
7. Do I want to publish my work open access?

Taylor & Francis

Impact factor (IF)
 The Journal Impact Factor is published each year by
Clarivate Analytics.
 It is a measure of the number of times an average paper in
a particular journal is cited during the preceding two
years.
Elsevier
Impact factor (IF)
For example:

A = the number of times articles published in a specific journal

in 2014 and 2015 were cited by journals during 2016.

B = the total number of 'citable items' published by that journal

in 2014 and 2015. ('Citable items' are usually articles, reviews,
proceedings, etc.; not editorials or letters-to-the-editor.)

2016 impact factor = A/B.

Elsevier
5-year Impact factor
 The citation performance of articles published during the
previous five years
 Useful for assessing journals in subject areas where it
takes longer for work to be cited
Taylor & Francis
Impact factor

Liz Wager
Impact factor

Liz Wager
Other metrics
 ISI ranking
 CiteScore
 SNIP (Source-Normalized Impact per Paper)
 SJR (SCImago Journal Rank)
 Eigenfactor®
Types of peer review
Type of review Description
Single blind Reviewer identity hidden from author;
(most common) reviewer knows identity of authors
Double blind Both reviewer and author remain anonymous
to each other
Triple blind Reviewers are anonymous; author's identity is
unknown to both the reviewers and the editor
Open Reviewer and author are known to each other

Elsevier
Predatory journals/pseudo-journals
 Send general ‘call for papers’ emails/flattering and highly
personalized emails
 Unsolicited emails to turn a paper into a complete
book/to draw from your recently published journal article
to present as a keynote at some obscure conference
Predatory journals/pseudo-journals
 The scope is too wide
 No transparency about article processing charges
 Poor online presence
 Not well-indexed
 Officials of the journal use email addresses of a free email
supplier
5. Writing a cover letter
Dr. Van Thai Nguyen
Junior Research Fellow
University of Tartu
Estonia
What to include?
 Address the editor who will be assessing your manuscript
by their name
 Include the date of submission and the journal you are
submitting to

Springer
What to include?
 First paragraph
oInclude the title of your manuscript and the type of
manuscript it is (e.g. review, research, case study).
oBriefly explain the background to your study, the
question you sought out to answer and why.

Springer
What to include?
 Second paragraph
oConcisely explain what was done, the main findings and
why they are significant.

Springer
What to include?
 Third paragraph
oShould indicate why the readers of the journal would
be interested in the work. Take your cues from the
journal’s aims and scope.
oFor example if the journal requires that all work
published has broad implications explain how your
study fulfils this.
oIt is also a good idea to include a sentence on the
importance of the results to the field. Springer
What to include?
 To conclude
oState the corresponding author
oAny journal specific requirements that need to be
complied with (e.g. ethical standards).

Springer
What to include?
TIP: All cover letters should contain these sentences:

 We confirm that this manuscript has not been published

elsewhere and is not under consideration by another
journal.
 All authors have approved the manuscript and agree with
its submission to [insert the name of the target journal].

Springer
6. Responding to reviewers
Dr. Van Thai Nguyen
Junior Research Fellow
University of Tartu
Estonia
Possible outcomes
 Reject outright
 Reject but invite to resubmit after addressing the
reviewers’ concerns
 Accept with revisions
 Accept with no changes
Reasons for rejection
 Mismatch with the journal
 Problems with the study
oLack of originality, novelty, or significance
oFlaws in study design
 Style
oPoor writing and organization
oInadequate preparation of the manuscript
Editage
Reasons for rejection
 Reasons not related to manuscript quality
oSpace constraints
oVolume of submissions
oJournal’s decision-making policy
oThe journal editor is looking for something specific at a
particular time
oThe journal receives more than one submission on the
same topic
Editage
What to do next?
 Appeal the rejection
 Resubmit to the same journal
 Make changes and submit to a different journal
 Make no changes and submit to a different journal
 Never resubmit it
Resubmit to same journal if:
 Rejected because too long
 Missing data can be added
 Data can be re-analysed
 Misinterpretation can be corrected
 Additional research can be done/added
 Overall comments were encouraging
Resubmit elsewhere if:
 Rejected outright
 Comments are not encouraging
 Irretrievable problems of design
 Data requested is missing
 You cannot agree on interpretation
 You are in a hurry and cannot make improvements in time
available
Check editor's letter
 Remember, the editor has the final say
 Check the editor's letter for requested changes
 Do everything the editor asks you
(or resubmit to another journal)
Responding to reviewers
 Don't get angry
 Respond to every point
 BUT you don't have to do everything the reviewers
suggest
 Argue your case (include references) if you are resisting
suggestions
Addressing comments
 Don’t rush but comply with deadline
 Be systematic, thorough and detailed
 Show where you have made changes
oPoint-by-point list plus tracked changes in paper
 Be polite, even if reviewers aren’t
7. Style and usage of
English language
Dr. Van Thai Nguyen
Junior Research Fellow
University of Tartu
Estonia
Tenses
 Simple present
 Present perfect
 Simple past
Paragraph: Topic sentence
 Reading is much easier and more effective when we have
some idea of what we are about to read.
 A mini-summary of what is to follow
 May paraphrase the main point you wish to make in the
paragraph
 Act as link between old and new
Paragraph: Topic sentence
 Topic sentence makes a claim, the paragraph which
follows must expand, describe, or prove it in some way.

 Topic sentences make a point and give reasons or

examples to support it.
Paragraphs
 One idea/theme per paragraph
 Help the reader/break up the text
 Put key points at beginning (or end)
 Put details in the middle
 Use linking words (e.g. However, Therefore)
 Let the function dictate the length
 Avoid repeated one-sentence paragraphs
Sentences
 Contain a subject and a verb and also an object + short
words
 The verb drives the sentence
 Short sentences are easiest to read
 20-30 words starts to be difficult
 Try to use active constructions
 Use direct/positive constructions
Sentence length
 Aim for one main idea in a sentence
 Average sentence length 20 to 22 words
Verbs
 Use active verbs
Verb: Active and passive
 We measured blood pressure at 4, 8, and 12 hours.

Or

 Blood pressure was measured at 4, 8, and 12 hours.

Verbs: Nomilisation
Verbs:
bring the action close to the subject
Verbs: To be
 Use the “to be” verb purposefully and sparingly.
 Excessive use of “to be” will make your sentences vague
and colorless.
Avoid hanging comparisons
Words
 Prefer short, familiar words
 Prefer direct (positive) words
 Avoid redundant words
 Avoid smothered verbs
 Avoid noun-verbs
Punctuation
 If you can’t punctuate a sentence easily, try shortening it
or rewriting it
 Avoid >4 punctuation marks per sentence
 Full stops (periods) are a great aid to sanity
 You can punctuate well with only full stops and commas
 Colons and semi-colons are luxuries!
British vs American spelling
 Whatever you choose, be consistent

 Journal instruction
Principles of readability
 Use short sentences
 Use short, familiar words
 Use the active voice

 Avoid medical jargon and abbreviations (and always

explain them)
Further reading
 Articles: a/an, the, no article
 Commonly confused words
oAffect, effect
oMostly, most (of), almost
oGood, well
oBreath, breathe
oComplement, compliment
oComprise, compose
oLose, loose
Further reading
 Punctuations
oComma ,
oSemicolon ;
oColon :
oBrackets/Parentheses ( )
oHyphen -
oEn dash –
oEm dash —
References
 Leijen D and Jürien A (2015). Scientific Writing in English
for Publication
 Wager L (2016). Publication workshop