How To Write A World-Class Paper

*Anatomy of a Publishable Paper

*Writing a Scientific Paper
ROEL PALO ANICAS, DA, EdD, FRIEdr, FRIRes
Research Director
Dean, Institute of Graduate Studies
Gordon College, Olongapo City
Outline
PART 1 – Writing a World-class Paper
 Why do scientists publish?

 What is a good manuscript?

 How to write a good manuscript?
 Preparations before starting
 Construction of an article
 Some technical details that need special attention
 Language

 Revision and response to reviewers

 Conclusion: what leads to ACCEPTANCE?

PART 2 - EPILOGUE
Why PUBLISH an article?
What is your personal reason for publishing?

Get pro Get

in g? mo
fund ted
?

PhD ? …
ee
??
degr ?
Why do scientists publish
Scientists publish…

To share with the science COMMUNITY something that

advances (i.e. not repeats) knowledge understanding in a
certain field.
A study is meaningful only if…
 it is clearly described;
 it arouses other scientists’ interest; and
 it allows others to reproduce the results.
A journal is the gateway to a community of
researchers with a common interest.

Journal Editors + Reviewers + Authors + Readers

= A community of scientists

Discourse community
What is a good manuscript
A manuscript makes readers (especially
reviewers and editors) understand the
SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE
as EASILY as possible.

 Content is essential.
 Presentation is critical.
2
E  mc
How to write a good manuscript
Think about WHY
you want to
publish your
work.
I
Have you REALLY done something new and interesting?

Is the work directly related to a current hot topic?

 Experts advised…

 You must get help from your supervisor or colleagues.

 DO NOT gamble by scattering your manuscript to many journals.
Submit only ONCE!
International ethics standards prohibit multiple / simultaneous
submissions, and editors DO find out !
Construction of an Article
The General Structure of a Full-blown Paper

 Title
Make them easy for indexing and searching!
 Authors
(informative, attractive, effective)
 Abstract
 Keywords

 Main text (IMRAD)

 Introduction Journal space is precious. Make your
 Methods article as brief as possible. If clarity
 Results can be achieved in n words, never
 And use n+1.
 Discussion (Conclusions)

 Acknowledgements
 References
 Supplementary material
1. Title – What is the paper broadly
about?
 Attract the reader’s attention.

 Check whether the title is specific and whether it

reflects the content of the manuscript.

 Keep it informative and concise.

 Avoid technical jargon and abbreviations if possible.

2. Abstract – tell the prospective readers what you

did and what were the important

findings.
 An advertisement of your article

 Accurate!

 Clear!

 Brief!
The Abstract contains…
1. Introduction
2. Chief Purpose
3. Methods
4. Results
5. Conclusion
6. Recommendations (optional)
3. Keywords – mainly used for indexing and
searching

 It is the label of your manuscript.

 Only abbreviations firmly established in the field are

eligible
e.g. DNA

 Check the Guide for Authors!

The Keywords …

1. Discipline of the Study

2. Concepts
3. Methods and Process
4. Geography
Anemic Abstract
Quality Abstract
Aspects to consider in writing the Abstract

A. Title and Scope

1. Number of Words – (12-15 words)
2. International Character (words are understandable
universally)
3. Cathy / Interesting
4. Scope: Relevance to an international audience

B. Word Count ( 190-210 words; never too short or exceeding)

C. Keywords - must contain 4 components:

1. Discipline of the study / Strand
2. Concepts studied
3. Method/process
4. Geography (country/continent)
D. Structure
1. Topic introduction: Presents conditions that propelled
the conduct of the research
2. Chief Purpose/Aim: States what the study intended to
discover
3. Method: Mentions how the study was conducted
- Design
- Techniques
- Instruments (optional)
- Statistical treatment (optional)
4. Results: Presents the salient findings; a sentence or
two only
5. Conclusions: Directly answers the chief purpose; your
most important discovery which contributes to new
knowledge; supports or negates previous
conclusions; validates theory used
6. Recommendations:(optional) Tells what can be done next
to effect the necessary changes desired; has
international application or relevance
E. Language: Use correct standard English, spelling and
grammar

F. Contribution to new knowledge: Newness of results which

are not yet in scientific literature; generates
new theory

G. Conformity to the theme

H. Conformity to the scope

I. Decision:

Approved for oral presentation

Disapproved for oral presentation
Decision withheld pending on submission of revised
abstract
4. Introduction -
Convince readers that you clearly know why
your work is useful

What is the problem?

Are there any existing solutions?
What is its main limitation?
And what do you hope to achieve?
Watch out for the following:
Never use more words than necessary.

Do not forget that you need to give the whole

picture at first.

Do not mix introduction with results,

discussion, and
conclusion.
5. Methods
How was the problem studied?

 Include detailed information.

 Reviewers will criticize incomplete or incorrect

descriptions (and may recommend rejection).
6. Results
What have you found?
 Only salient representative results should be
presented.

 Do not attempt to “hide” data in the hope of

saving it for a later paper.

 Use sub-headings to keep results of the same

type
together.
 Generally, tables give the actual experimental
results.

 Graphs are often used for comparison of

experimental results.

 No illustrations should duplicate the information

described elsewhere in the manuscript.
8. Conclusion
How the work advances the field from the
present state of knowledge

 DON’T REPEAT THE ABSTRACT

 You should provide a clear scientific justification for

your work in this section.

 The concluding paragraph might also offer some

guidance for action
e.g. The time has come to stop the rampant depletion
of the manganese supply…
Transitional Devices
Summary, Repetition, or Conclusion
As a result…
As has been noted…
As mentioned earlier…
In any event…
In conclusion...
In other words…
In short…
On the whole…
Therefore…
To summarize…
9. References
 Cite the main scientific publications on which your work
is based.

 Do not over-inflate the manuscript with too many

references.

 Avoid self-citations.

 Avoid excessive citations of publications from the same

region.

 Check correspondence between text and reference list

Some Technical Details that need
Special Attention
Technical details
 Length of the manuscript
 Supporting material
 Text layout
 Abbreviations
Language
KISS: Keep It Short and Simple
Clarity
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not
simpler” (Einstein)

Objectivity
Philosophy of scientific method - avoid personal pronouns

Accuracy
Avoid imprecise language (nowadays, good, currently)

Brevity
Write briefly and to the point using active voice and short
sentences
Grammar, spelling, etc.
 You are encouraged to have an English expert
proofreading your manuscript.

 Limit the use of unfamiliar words or phrases.

 US or UK spelling should be used consistently

throughout a paper
Word-level Issues
 There is no noun phrase "a research" nor
“researches” for plural form in English.

 Avoid contractions.

 Authors are authors, not writers.

 Write what you mean, mean what you

write.
Revision and Response to Reviewers
 Who moved your manuscript?
Author Editor Reviewer
START

Basic requirements met?

Submit a [Yes]
paper
Assign
reviewers Review and give
[No] recommendation
Collect reviewers’
recommendations

[Reject] Make a
REJECT
decision
Revise the [Revision required]
paper
[Accept]

ACCEPT
Why revision is important and necessary?
Which procedure do you prefer?

 Send out a sloppily prepared manuscript  get

rejected after 4-6 months  send out again only a few
days later  get rejected again…  sink into despair

OR

 Take 3-4 months to prepare the manuscript  get the

first decision after 4 months  revise carefully within
time limitation…accepted
 Revision before submission – Checklist
Reasons for early rejection
 Paper is of limited interest /covers
local issues only (sample type,
geography, specific product, etc.).
 Paper is a routine application of well-
known methods.
 Paper presents an incremental
advance or is limited in scope.
 Novelty and significance are not
immediately evident or sufficiently
well-justified.
What should you check?
 Does your work have any interest for an
international audience?
 Have you added any significant values
to an exist method or explored
remarkable extensions of its
application?
 Did you provide a perspective consistent
with the nature of journal?
 Does your work add to the existing body
of knowledge?
 Reasons for early rejection What should you check?

 Failure to meet submission  Read the Guide for Authors again!

requirements  Are there too many self-citations, or

 Incomplete coverage of literature references that are difficult for the
 Unacceptably poor English international reader to access?

 Correct all the grammatical and spelling

mistakes.
Revision after submission
 If you are going to use VERBATIM sections of text, they
must be put into QUOTATIONS and properly cited WITHIN
the paper. If you are going to reword the sections, you will
still need to put the citations WITHIN the paper after you
reference the publication used. 
“Presenting the data or interpretations of others without
crediting them, and thereby gaining for yourself the
rewards earned by others, is theft, and it eliminates the
motivation of working scientists to generate new data and
interpretations.”

Professor Bruce Railsback

Department of Geology, University of Georgia
Plagiarism: Tempting short-cut with
long-term consequences

Plagiarism will hurt your reputation

in the scientific community.
One of the most common forms of plagiarism is
inappropriate, or inadequate paraphrasing.

Paraphrasing is restating someone else's

ideas while not copying verbatim.
Unacceptable paraphrasing includes any of the following:
 usingphrases from the original source without enclosing
them in quotation marks

 emulating sentence structure even when using different

wording

 emulating paragraph organization even when using

different wording or sentence structure
– Statement on Plagiarism
Department of Biology, Davidson College.

www.bio.davidson.edu/dept/plagiarism.html
What guarantee an acceptable paraphrasing?

 Make sure that you really understand what the original

author means.

 Never copy and paste any words that you do not fully
understand.

 Compare you paraphrasing with the source.

What leads to acceptance ?
 Attention to details
 Check and double check your work
 Consider the reviewers’ comments
 English must be as good as possible
 Presentation is important
 Take your time with revision
 Acknowledge those who have helped you
 New, original and previously unpublished
 Critically evaluate your own manuscript
 Ethical rules must be obeyed
– Nigel John Cook
Editor-in-Chief, Ore Geology Reviews
Part 2
Epilogue … Epilogue … Epilogue
Keep persevering in conducting RESEARCH!!!
 REFERENCES
 Elsevier Authors Workshop (PPT) http://taiwan.elsevier.com/htmlmailings/AuthorWorkshop-SP-PPT-Sep%2009.pdf
 Mark Ware Consulting Ltd, Publishing and E-learning Consultancy. Scientific publishing in transition: an overview of current
developments. Sept., 2006.
www.stm-assoc.org/storage/Scientific_Publishing_in_Transition_White_Paper.pdf
 Guide for Authors of Elsevier journals.
 Ethical Guildleines for Journal Publishing, Elsevier. http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/intro.cws_home/ethical_guidelines#Duties%20of
%20Authors
 International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing
and Editing for Biomedical Publication. Feb. 2006
 http://www.publicationethics.org.uk/guidelines
 http://www.icmje.org/index.html#ethic
 http://www.onlineethics.org/
 http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/
 http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~wilkins/writing/index.html
 George D. Gopen, Judith A. Swan. The science of Scientific Writing. American Scientist (Nov-Dec 1990), Vol. 78, 550-558.
 Michael Derntl. Basics of Research Paper Writing and Publishing.
http://www.pri.univie.ac.at/~derntl/papers/meth-se.pdf
 Thomas H Adair. Professor, Physiology & Biophysics Center of Excellence in Cardiovascular-Renal Research, University of Mississippi
Medical Center. http://dor.umc.edu/ARCHIVES/WritingandpublishingaresearcharticleAdair.ppt
 Bruce Railsback. Professor, Department of Geology, University of Georgia. Some Comments on Ethical issues about research.
www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/11111misc/ResearchEthics.html
 Peter Young. Writing and Presenting in English. The Rosetta Stone of Science. Elsevier 2006.
 Philip Campbell. Editor-in-Chief, Nature. Futures of scientific communication and outreach. June 2007.
 Yaoqi ZHOU. Recipe for a quality Scientific Paper: Fulfill Readers’ and Reviewers’ Expectations. http://sparks.informatics.iupui.edu
 EDANZ Editing training materials. 2006 http://liwenbianji.com, http://www.edanzediting.com/english.html