How To Write And Publish A Scientific Manuscript

Issues of Concern

Clinicians who seek to conduct retrospective chart reviews, prospective studies, or even randomized, controlled clinical trials should access the many resources to ensure quality methodology.[5] Once you have followed the appropriate steps to conduct a study (Table 1), you should complete the process by writing a manuscript to describe your findings and share it with other clinicians and researchers. Other resources detail the steps in writing a review article, but this StatPearls chapter focuses on writing a scientific manuscript for original research. See also the StatPearls chapter for the different types of research manuscripts.[6]

Clinical Significance

Steps to Conducting Research

1. Develop a research question
2. Perform a literature search
3. Identify a gap in the literature
4. Design a study protocol (including personnel)
5. Submit to an institutional review board for approval
6. Collect, responsibly store, and then analyze data
7. Write a manuscript to interpret and describe your research.

After conducting a quality investigation or a study, one should assemble an abstract and manuscript to share results. Researchers can write an abstract in a short amount of time, though the abstract evolves as the full manuscript moves to completion. Many published and presented abstracts do not reach full manuscript publication.[7][8] Although journals and conferences often publish abstracts, studies with important results should be published in full manuscript form to ensure dissemination and allow attempts at replication.[9] IRB protocols, study design, and data collection and aggregation require a team effort. Those involved in the research should discuss who contributes to the full manuscript (ie, qualify as an author) and, thus, the planned order of authorship to reduce complications at the time of manuscript submission. The author who devotes the most effort to the paper is typically the first and corresponding author. In contrast, the last author is often the team's most senior member and often the study's principal investigator. All individuals listed as authors should contribute to the manuscript and overall project in some fashion.[10] The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist is perhaps the most valuable tool for preparing a manuscript for submission[11]. Original research manuscripts have the following sections (in chronologic order):

• Introduction (Background and Objectives)
• Methods (Design, Setting, Participants, Variables, Statistics)
• Results (Participants, Descriptives, Outcomes, Subgroups)
• Tables and Figures     
• Discussion (Key findings, Limitations, Interpretations)
• Conclusion
• Conflict of Interest (COI), Author affiliations, Acknowledgments, Funding
• References[11]

Individuals involved in the IRB submission (before data collection) can write the introduction and methods of the manuscript before and during the data collection and analysis process. This head start on writing makes the full manuscript composition task less formidable. The content of the introduction and methods should be well-known to the study group before data collection and analysis. The introduction should be organized into a “problem/gap/hook” order: what problem this study addresses, the precise gap in the literature, and the study's objectives (in addressing the gap).[12] The methods should provide enough detail so readers who want to replicate the study can do so.

Once data is collected and analyzed, authors can write an abstract to organize the major themes of the research, understanding that the abstract undergoes edits once the manuscript is complete. Similarly, the title can change with revisions as authors determine the most salient trends in the data. Most readers only read the title +/- abstract. Thus, these are the most important sections of the paper. The title should be concise and directly describe the trial result, which also helps generate more citations. The abstract must convey the crucial findings of the paper, ideally divided into sections for easier reading (unless the desired journal does not allow this).[13] With the larger picture in mind, authors should create tables and figures that visually convey the themes of the data analysis. Working with statisticians or data experts, authors should devote much time to this manuscript component. Some general concepts:[14]

• Only include tables/figures that you believe are necessary.
• Make sure tables/figures are high-quality, simple, clear, and have concise captions.
• Do not repeat language in results that appear in tables/figures; the tables/figures should stand alone.
• Consider how the figure looks in grayscale (in case the journal is not in color)

As with the abstract and title, the tables and figures likely undergo further edits before the manuscript's completion. The abstract and tables/figures should intuitively evolve together to convey the story of the research project. Now, refer back to the introduction and methods composed during data collection. Make revisions as necessary to reflect the overall narrative of the project. Ensure you have adhered to the originally determined objectives or hypotheses. Next, focus on the results and discussion. The results should contain only objective data with no interpretation of significance. Describe salient results that have not been explained in the figures and tables. The discussion section begins with a lead paragraph highlighting the most important findings from the study. Then, the discussion interprets the current results in light of prior published literature. Ensure citation of keystone papers on this topic, including new papers published since embarking on the current project. Frame your results, describing how this study adds to the literature. The discussion section usually includes study limitations. Attempt to anticipate criticisms of the methodology, the results, the organization of the manuscript itself, and the (ability to draw) conclusions. A stronger limitations section preempts journal reviewer feedback, potentially simplifying the revision/resubmission process.

The conclusion section should be concise, conveying the main take-home points from your study. You can make recommendations for current clinical practice and for future research endeavors. Finally, consider using citation management software such as Endnote or Mendeley. Though initially cumbersome, these software platforms drastically improve revision efforts and allow easy reference reformatting. All authors should review the manuscript multiple times, potentially sharing it with other uninvolved colleagues for objective feedback. Consider who should receive acknowledgment for supporting the project and prepare to disclose conflicts of interest and funding. Although authors should have an initial idea of which journal to submit to, this decision is more straightforward once the manuscript is near completion. Journal rankings are beyond the scope of this StatPearls chapter. Still, generally, one should devise a list of the journals within a specialty in order of highest to lowest impact factor (some sites categorize into tiers). High-quality prospective research and clinical trials have a higher likelihood of acceptance into the more prestigious journals within a specialty or to the high-quality general science or medicine journals. Although many journals have an option for open access publication, and numerous legitimate, open access journals now exist, beware of ‘predatory journals’ that charge a fee to publish and may not be indexed in Pubmed or other databases.[12]

Journals have diverse guidelines for formatting and submission, and the manuscript submission process can be tedious. Before submission, review Bordage’s paper on reasons for manuscript rejection.[15] Most journals require a title page and cover letter, representing an opportunity to lobby for your paper’s importance. When (not if) you experience manuscript rejections, take reviewer comments and recommendations seriously. Use this valuable feedback for resubmission to the original journal (when invited) or subsequent submission to other journals. When submitting a requested revision, compose a point-by-point response to the reviewers and attach a new manuscript with tracked changes. Attempt to resubmit manuscripts as promptly as possible, keeping your work in the hands of journals (allowing you to work on other research).[14]

Nursing, Allied Health, and Interprofessional Team Interventions

The above logistic steps differ for review articles, case reports, editorials, and other submissions.[16] However, the organization, precise methods, and adherence to journal guidelines remain important. See work by Provenzale on principles to increase the likelihood of acceptance for original and revised manuscripts. After submission, revision, resubmission, and proofing, you may experience the fulfillment of an official publication. Academics should promote their scientific work, enhancing the dissemination of research to the wider scientific community.[17][18][17][19]