manuscript in research paper meaning

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List

How to write a scientific manuscript for publication

Giancarlo maria liumbruno, claudio velati, patrizio pasqualetti, massimo franchini.

• Author information
• Article notes
• Copyright and License information

Correspondence: Giancarlo Maria Liumbruno, Viale Italia, 19, 57126 Livorno, Italy, e-mail: [email protected]

Received 2012 Oct 31; Accepted 2012 Dec 6.

Keywords: medical manuscript, publication, journal article, review, authorship

Introduction

The origins and development of the scientific and technical press can be traced back to 1665 when the first “modern” scientific papers appeared and were characterized by non standardised form and style 1 . Subsequently, nearly 300 years ago 2 , in an attempt to ensure that articles met the journal’s standards of quality and scientific validity, the peer-reviewed process for scientific manuscripts was born in England and France. Since then, there has been an enormous proliferation of scientific journals and manuscripts so that, at present, the numbers of biomedical papers published annually by over 20,000 journals, at a rate of 5,500 new papers per day, far exceeds 2,000,000 1 , 2 .

Published scientific papers and professional meetings are really essential to disseminate relevant information and research findings. However, most of the abstracts of presentations given at scientific meetings are usually available only in conference proceedings although they have the potential to be subsequently published as articles in peer-reviewed journals.

A recently published Cochrane review showed that only 44.5% of almost 30,000 scientific meeting abstracts were published as articles 3 . No association between full publication and authors’ country of origin was detected. Factors associated with full publication included acceptance vs rejection of abstracts for oral or poster presentations, acceptance for oral presentations rather than poster sessions, “positive” results, using the report authors’ definition of “positive”, randomised trial study design and basic rather than clinical research.

Possible reasons for failed publication include lack of time, research still underway, problems with co-authors and negative results 4 . Undoubtedly, lack of the necessary skills and experience in the process of writing and publishing is another possible contributing factor also in the field of Transfusion Medicine although the specialists in this discipline are currently adopting the principles and research methodologies that support evidence-based medicine 5 , and high-level research is actually being carried out at the same rate as in all medical specialties.

There are three broad groups of manuscripts: original scientific articles, reviews and case reports. Although case reports are part of the evidence hierarchy in evidence-based practice, albeit at a lower level, and case series are incorporated in a significant proportion of health technology assessments 6 , this article will address the multiple steps required in writing original articles and reviews with the aim of providing the reader with the necessary tools to prepare, submit and successfully publish a manuscript.

The anatomy of a paper: from origin to current format

The history of scientific journals dates from 1665, when the French “Journal des sçavans” and the English “Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society” first began systematically publishing research results 7 . From then on, the initial structure of scientific papers evolved gradually from letters (usually by a single author, with a polite style and contemporarily addressing multiple subjects) and experimental reports (essentially descriptive and presenting experiences and effects in chronological order) to a better structured and more fluent form characterised by an embryonic description of methods and interpretation of results. This evolved way of reporting experiments gradually replaced the letter form.

It was not, however, until the second half of the 19 th century that the method description became fully developed and a comprehensive organisation of the manuscripts known as “theory-experiment-discussion” emerged 1 . At the beginning of the last century a gradual decrease of the use of the literary style coincided with a growing standardisation of the editorial rules that paved the way for the formal established Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion (IMRAD) structure of scientific papers, which was adopted in the 1980s.

At present, IMRAD is the format encouraged for the text of observational (i.e. retrospective/descriptive) and experimental (i.e. randomised controlled) studies by the “Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals” which have become the most important and widely accepted (by over 500 biomedical journals) guide to writing, publishing, and editing in international biomedical publications 8 . The Uniform Requirements are released by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), an evolution of the initial group of Journal Editors who met for the first time in Vancouver in 1978 and subsequently issued a number of editorial policy statements and guidelines for manuscript submission.

According to the ICMJE, “this so-called IMRAD structure is not an arbitrary publication format but rather a direct reflection of the process of scientific discovery” 9 . In addition it facilitates modular reading and locating of specific information, which is normally found in pre-established sections of an article 7 .

“Long articles may need subheadings within some sections (especially Results and Discussion) to clarify their content. Other types of articles, such as case reports, reviews and editorials, probably need to be formatted differently” 9 .

This format does not comprise other important and integral parts of the article, such as the Title Page, Abstract, Acknowledgements, Figures and Tables (comprising their legends) and References 8 .

There are often slight variations from one journal’s format to another but every journal has instructions to authors available on their website and it is crucial that authors download and comply with them.

The latest edition of the Uniform Requirements was updated in April 2010; it is available at the ICMJE website and is an essential guideline for all authors writing a biomedical manuscript 9 .

Consolidated standards of reporting trials

Medical science depends entirely on the transparent reporting of clinical trials 10 .

Unfortunately, several reviews have documented deficiencies in reports of clinical trials 11 – 15 .

In 1996, a group of scientists and editors developed the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement which is intended to improve the reporting of a randomised, controlled trial (RCT), enabling readers to understand the design of a trial, its conduct, analysis and interpretation and to assess the validity of its results 16 . It emphasises that this can only be achieved through complete transparency from authors.

The CONSORT statement was updated in 2001 and after the 2007 meeting the statement was further revised and published as CONSORT 2010 which is the most up-to-date version and can be freely viewed and downloaded through one of the several link to Journals available at the CONSORT website under the section “CONSORT Statement - Downloads” 17 . The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCT and many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed it.

The statement consists of a checklist (25 items) and a flow diagram that authors can use for reporting a RCT. The checklist items pertain to the content of the Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion and Other information. The flow diagram is intended to depict the passage of participants through a RCT (enrolment, intervention allocation, follow-up and analysis). It is strongly recommended that the CONSORT Statement be used in conjunction with the CONSORT Explanation and Elaboration Document which is available at the CONSORT website under the above mentioned section 17 .

Another major point to consider is the obligation to register clinical trials 9 .

In September 2004 the ICMJE changed their policy and decided they would consider trials for publication only if they had been registered before the enrolment of the first participant. The ICMJE accepts registration in the international registries listed in Table I .

International trial registries acceptable to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and relevant websites.

Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology

The reporting of observational studies frequently lacks details and is not clear enough 18 , 19 . Consequently the quality is poor although many questions in medical research are investigated in observational studies and overwhelming evidence is also extrapolated from them 20 . In fact, observational studies are more suitable for the detection of rare or late adverse effects of treatments, and are more likely to provide an indication of what is achieved in daily medical practice 21 .

To improve the reporting of observational studies (cohort, case-control or cross-sectional studies) a group of methodologists, researchers and editors developed a useful checklist of 22 items: the StrengThening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement 21 . The checklist items pertain to the content of the Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion and Other information sections of articles. The STROBE checklists can be freely viewed and downloaded at the STROBE website under the section “Available checklists” 22 . They also include a draft checklist for conference abstracts (items to be included when reporting observational studies in a conference abstract) pertaining to the content of the following sections: Title, Authors, Study design, Objective, Methods, Results and Conclusion.

The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors on how to improve the reporting of observational studies, it facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies and is widely supported by reviewers, a growing number of biomedical journal editors and readers.

The STROBE checklist is best used in conjunction with an explanation and elaboration article which discusses each of the 22 checklist items, gives methodological background, publishes examples of transparent reporting and is freely available at the STROBE Statement website under the above mentioned section through the link with the Journals in which the document has been published (PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine and Epidemiology) 22 .

As review articles comprehensively cover a specific biomedical topic and justify future research directions, they require that the author extensively review and master the literature and then develop some general statements and conclusions with practical implications for patients’ care 23 , 24 . In addition, they should provide an updated reference for those readers interested in broadening their knowledge of critical issues. Review articles are, therefore, important not only for younger physicians early in their career but also for senior academic staff as they represent a tool for intellectual enrichment and enhancement of the standards of research. Writing a review requires knowledge and continuous improvement of qualifications in line with the accumulation of better and updated scientific literature evidence. For this reason, journals often invite experts on a specific topic to write a review article. However, authors can also ask Editors if they would be interested in publishing a review article on a particular, topical, relevant and debated issue.

As reviews are the most accessed among the various types of articles and contribute substantially to the impact factor of journals, obviously they are welcomed and encouraged by many journals and have become an inseparable part of the writing scientific culture.

The three basic types of literature reviews are narrative reviews (which include editorials, commentaries and narrative overviews or non-systematic narrative reviews), qualitative systematic reviews and quantitative systematic reviews (meta-analyses) ( Table II ) 25 .

Summary of the types of literature reviews.

Editorials, typically written by the editor of the journal or an invited guest, may be a narrative review if the author retrieves and summarises information about a particular topic for the reader 25 . Usually, these types of narrative reviews are based upon a short, select and narrowly focused review of only a few papers. However, editorials may be no more than the editor’s comments regarding a current issue of the journal or a current event in health care and do not, therefore, automatically qualify as narrative reviews.

Commentaries

Commentaries may also be written as a narrative review; however, they are typically written with a particular opinion being expressed 25 . Research methodology is not usually presented in these articles which reflect the author’s biased synthesis of other articles. Commentaries are usually shorter than a full-length review article and the author should be an expert in the content area of the commentary. Usually, the purpose of a commentary is to stimulate academic debate between the journal’s readers.

Narrative reviews

Non-systematic narrative reviews are comprehensive narrative syntheses of previously published information 26 . This type of literature review reports the author’s findings in a condensed format that typically summarises the contents of each article. Authors of narrative overviews are often acknowledged experts in the field and have conducted research themselves. Editors sometimes solicit narrative overviews from specific authors in order to bring certain issues to light. Although the bibliographic research methodology is an obligatory section in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, it is also becoming an inseparable part of narrative literature reviews. Providing information on the databases accessed, terms, inclusion and exclusion criteria and time limits adds objectivity to the main messages and conclusions. It is advisable to use only credible databases (at least two or three) which only select high-quality publications that contain the most up-to-date information (see Table III ) 24 . The best way to organise the analysis of the sources in the main text of a narrative biomedical review is to transform information from the retrieved publications into bibliographic cards with a short description of the main results, level of evidence, strengths and limitations of each study and relevance to each section of the manuscript. Furthermore, the readability of a review can be improved by including a few self-explanatory tables, boxes, and figures synthesising essential information and conveying original messages 24 . We also suggest the use of software packages for reference management, which saves time during the multiple revisions.

Main online libraries, catalogues and databases.

In conclusion, a successful narrative review should have the following characteristics: be well-structured, synthesise the available evidence pertaining to the topic, convey a clear message and draw conclusions supported by data analysis.

Qualitative systematic reviews

Qualitative systematic reviews are a type of literature review that employ detailed, rigorous and explicit methods and are, therefore, a more powerful evidence-based source to garner clinical information than narrative reviews, case reports, case series, and poorly conducted cohort studies. A detailed bibliographic research based upon a focused question or purpose is the peculiar characteristic of a systematic review 27 . These reviews are called qualitative because the process by which the individual studies are integrated includes a summary and critique of the findings derived from systematic methods, but does not statistically combine the results of all of the studies reviewed.

Quantitative systematic reviews

A quantitative systematic review or meta-analysis critically evaluates each paper and statistically combines the results of the studies 28 . The authors of a meta-analysis employ all of the rigorous methodology of qualitative systematic reviews and, in addition, gather the original patients’ data from each of the studies under review, pool it all together in a database and produce the appropriate statistics on this larger sample. While this process leads to a more powerful and generalizable conclusion, which is the strength of the meta-analysis, on the other hand it can pool together studies that are very heterogeneous which is the main drawback of a quantitative systematic review. Nevertheless, well-executed quantitative systematic reviews constitute the highest level of evidence for medical decision making 28 .

The recently published Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement aims to help improve reporting, focusing on systematic reviews of RCT. The Statement consists of a checklist of 27 essential items for transparent reporting and a flow diagram for the phases of study selection and is accompanied by the PRISMA Explanation and Elaboration Document, which, among other things, provides examples of good reporting for the various review sections 29 .

A further guidance on the reporting of systematic reviews has been published by the Cochrane Collaboration, an international organisation that prepares, updates and publishes systematic reviews of the effects of health-care interventions following a standardised format 30 .

Preparing to write a manuscript Background information

The question or hypothesis formulated by the investigator is the common starting point to search the relevant published literature for an answer 31 . Gathering the background information through an extensive literature search relevant to the topic of interest is the subsequent essential step. Peer reviewers are often experts and not citing important articles poses the manuscript at risk of rejection. It is advisable to consult at least two or three credible databases (see Table III ) to identify the crucial relevant articles and to track down “landmark” articles. In addition, avoid using papers published more than 10 years ago and do not rely on just the abstracts but obtain full-text articles. Articles relevant to the research topic and published in the journal in which the paper is to be submitted should be reviewed and cited 32 .

Last but not least, the bibliographical search should also aim at finding recently published articles similar to the one the author intends to submit. In fact, a journal can be less interested in publishing such a manuscript unless the results reflect new or different findings.

Target journal

It can be worth thinking about this issue before starting to write as a proper choice of the journal can affect not only the writing style but also the ease of publication and the prompt dissemination of research. Ideally, the target journal should be the one in which similar work has been published 32 .

Electronic and open-access journals are the latest resources for publishing and data dissemination available on the scientific journal horizon.

It is also worth considering an appropriate level of impact factor or journal quality. The impact factor of a journal is a measure reflecting the average number of citations to recent articles published in science and social science journals. It is determined by the ratio of the number of citations of papers from that journal in the whole of the biomedical literature over a 2-year period. It is frequently used as a proxy for the relative importance of a journal within its field, with journals with higher impact factors deemed to be more important than those with lower ones.

It is also extremely important to read the instructions to authors section of the selected journal carefully. In fact, although there is a general style for most biomedical journals as agreed by the ICMJE in the Uniform Requirements 9 , individual journals may differ slightly in detail.

It is always best to sort out authorship before writing a manuscript as authorship order can be a source of problems once the paper has been written 23 .

Several guidelines relating to authorship are available and this issue has been extensively addressed in a recently published review article by Elizabeth Wager 33 . Most guidelines on the authorship of scientific articles are focused more on creative and intellectual aspects of research than on routine or technical contributions.

Alhough not universally accepted, the authorship criteria suggested by the ICMJE are the ones most widely promoted by medical journals 9 . According to these criteria, co-authors should: (i) substantially contribute to conception and design of the study, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; (ii) draft the article or revise it critically for important intellectual content; and (iii) approve the final version.

The authors are listed in decreasing order of their contribution and the senior author, or mentor, should be the last but this convention has never been codified 33 .

It is advisable to provide accurate affiliations and contacts as they will be published on PubMed as well as in the journal but it is also important to agree on the corresponding author who should have full access to the study data and through the provided e-mail address will be the link with the scientific community for the future 1 .

Ethical issues

In addition to the authorship discussed above, there are several ethical issues involved in writing a paper. These include fabrication of data, duplicate publication, plagiarism, misuse of statistics, manipulation of images and inadequate or obviously false citations 31 .

A must-read for all those who are involved in any editorial activity are the guidelines released by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) which is a forum for editors and publishers of peer-reviewed journals to discuss all aspects of publication ethics 34 . COPE provides advice to editors and publishers on all aspects of publication ethics and, in particular, how to handle cases of research and publication misconduct.

Writing the manuscript

Several models for the initial draft exist. A useful algorithm for writing a scientific manuscript is the one recently published by O’Connor and Holmquist 35 . According to these authors, the writing should start with making figures and tables, and then proceed with summary statements (the conclusions summarising the major contributions of the manuscript to the scientific community), identification of the audience, materials and methods, results, discussion, references, introduction, title and conclusion. The aim of this algorithm is to give the structural backbone to the manuscript and is designed to overcome writer’s block and to assist scientists who are not native English speakers.

A further and more general strategy to increase productivity during the early phases of manuscript writing is to ignore at the outset all the details that can be approached later such as structure, grammar and spelling.

The sequence of writing should address the following core sections of the paper in the order from first to last: methods, results, discussion and introduction 31 , 36 , 37 .

“Like every well-written story, a scientific manuscript should have a beginning (Introduction), middle (Materials and Methods), and an end (Results). The Discussion (the moral of the story) puts the study in perspective. The Abstract is an opening summary of the story and the Title gives the story a name” 38 . However, as correctly pointed out by Michael McKay, “writing is not necessarily in the temporal order of the final document (i.e. the IMRAD format)” 39 .

The take-home messages are, therefore: (i) a clear understanding of the essential components of each of these sections is critical to the successful composition of a scientific manuscript; (ii) the proper order of writing greatly facilitates the ease of writing; (iii) the approach to writing can be customised by authors on the basis both of the subject they are dealing with and their personal experience; (iv) the CONSORT 16 , 17 , STROBE 21 , 22 or PRISMA 29 statement must be used as a guidance document for the appropriate reporting of the type of study the authors are dealing with 31 , 32 , 38 .

In the following part of this paper the different sections of a manuscript will be dealt with in the order they are presented in the final document.

Title, keywords and abstract

The title is determinant for the indexing process of the article and greatly contributes to the visibility of the paper. It should reflect the essence of the article, its novelty and its relevance to the biomedical field it deals with 24 . It should be clear, brief, specific, not include jargon or non-standard and unexplained abbreviations, reflect the purpose of the study and state the issue(s) addressed rather than the conclusions 38 . Indicative titles are, therefore, better than declarative ones. Obviously, the title and abstract should correlate with each other.

Available evidence suggests that the presence of a colon in the title positively correlates with the number of citations 40 . In other words, the more specific and accurate the description of the content is, the more chance the manuscript has of being cited 38 .

The title of systematic reviews should ideally follow the participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS) approach, and include the terms “systematic review”, “meta-analysis”, or both 41 .

The keywords enable the database searching of the article and should be provided in compliance with the instructions to authors. A careful choice from the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) in the National Library of Medicine (NLM) controlled vocabulary thesaurus used for indexing articles in PubMed greatly increases the chances the paper is retrieved and cited by other authors 42 .

The abstract is the last section to be written but it is the most important part of a paper because it is usually the first to be read and readers use the information contained in it to decide whether to read the whole article or not. It should be a concise summary of the manuscript and no longer than specified in the instructions to authors. Usually, abstracts do not contain references and abbreviations and acronyms are not always allowed. If required, it has to be structured in a specific way. For example, original articles submitted to Blood Transfusion, require an abstract of no more than 2,000 characters (including spaces), structured as follows: Background, Materials and methods, Results, Discussion 43 .

A good abstract should be easy to understand and broadly appealing, informative but not too detailed. It can start with a sentence or two outlining the work; then the disease and/or system studied must be introduced and what was previously unknown has to be stated in order to provide a brief overview of the current state-of-the art knowledge on the issue. The methods must be summarised without too many details; the major findings must be clearly indicated and followed by a sentence or two showing the major implications of the paper that must be consistent with the study conclusions without overestimating their possible relevance 44 . In the abstract the present tense should be used to refer to facts already established in the field, while the findings from the current study should be dealt with in the past tense.

The aim of the introduction is to introduce the topic to the readers in a straightforward way, avoiding excessive wordiness 42 . For this reason it should be short and focused, comprising approximately three paragraphs in one page 37 .

The first paragraph should mention the questions or issues that outline the background of the study and establish, using the present tense, the context, relevance, or nature of the problem, question, or purpose (what is known) 23 , 37 .

The second paragraph may include the importance of the problem and unclear issues (what is unknown).

The last paragraph should state the rationale, hypothesis, main objective, or purpose thus clearly identifying the hypothesis to be treated and the questions addressed in the manuscript (why the study was done).

One of the most common mistakes is the failure to make a clear statement of purpose. This is because many research projects, especially retrospective clinical studies, do not start at the beginning (with the identification of a specific question, followed by methods and data collection) but begin by collecting data without first identifying a specific question to be addressed that must in any case be established before beginning to write 38 . Data or conclusions from the study should not be presented or anticipated in the introduction section.

Writing the introduction at the end of the process prevents any block and it is easier after the methods, results and discussion have been completed.

Materials and methods

The methods section is one of the most important parts of a scientific manuscript and its aim is to give the reader all the necessary details to replicate the study.

CONSORT 16 , 17 , STROBE 21 , 22 and PRISMA 29 statements provide a guideline relevant to the particular type of study 2 , 42 .

The two essential elements of this section are a clear presentation of the study design and the identification and description of the measurement parameters used to evaluate the purpose of the study.

It is, therefore, necessary to provide a thorough explanation of the research methodology, including the study design, data collection, analysis principles and rationale. Special attention should be paid to the sample selection, including inclusion and exclusion criteria and to any relevant ethical considerations. A description of the randomisation or other group assignment methods used should be included, as should be the pre-specified primary and secondary outcome(s) and other variables.

According to the Uniform Requirements 9 , in the case of experimental/clinical reports involving patients or volunteers, the authors must provide information about institutional, regulatory and ethical Committee authorisation, informed consent from patients and volunteers and the observance of the latest release of the Helsinki Declaration 45 .

When reporting experiments on animals, authors should state which institutional authority granted approval for the animal experiments 9 .

Finally, in addition to describing and identifying all the measurement parameters used, it is also important to describe any unusual statistical methodology applied, how subjects were recruited and compensated and how compliance was measured (if applicable).

The results section consists of the organised presentation of the collected data. All measurements that the authors described in the materials and methods section must be reported in the results section and be presented in the same order as they were in that section 35 . The past tense should be used as results were obtained in the past. Author(s) must ensure that they use proper words when describing the relationship between data or variables. These “data relation words” should be turned into “cause/effect logic and mechanistic words” in the discussion section. A clear example of the use of this appropriate language can be found in the article by O’Connor 35 .

This section should include only data, including negative findings, and not background or methods or results of measurements that were not described in the methods section 2 . The interpretation of presented data must not be included in this section.

Results for primary and secondary outcomes can be reported using tables and figures for additional clarity. The rationale for end-point selection and the reason for the non-collection of information on important non-measured variables must be explained 35 .

Figures and tables should be simple, expand text information rather than repeat it, be consistent with reported data and summarise them 23 . In addition, they should be comprehensible on their own, that is, with only title, footnotes, abbreviations and comments.

References in this section should be limited to methods developed in the manuscript or to similar methods reported in the literature.

Patients’ anonymity is essential unless consent for publication is obtained.

The main objective of the discussion is to explain the meaning of the results.

This section should be structured as if it were a natural flow of ideas and should start with a simple statement of the key findings and whether they are consistent with the study objectives enunciated in the last paragraph of the introduction. The strengths and the limitations of the research and what the study adds to current knowledge should then be addressed 42 .

Through logical arguments, the authors should convert the relations of the variables stated in the results section into mechanistic interpretations of cause and effect using the present tense as these relations do exist at present 35 . In addition, they should describe how the results are consistent or not with similar studies and discuss any confounding factors and their impact.

They should avoid excessive wordiness and other commonly made errors such as 38 : (i) including information unrelated to the stated purpose of the article; (ii) repeating detailed data previously presented in the Results section; (iii) not interpreting and not critically analysing results of other studies reviewed and cited but rather just repeating their findings; (iv) presenting new data or new details about techniques and enrolment criteria, and (v) overstating the interpretation of the results.

Another common mistake is to forget to criticise the research described in the manuscript by highlighting the limitations of the study. The value of a scientific article is enhanced not only by showing the strengths but also the weak points of the evidence reported in the paper.

The conclusion is a separate, last paragraph that should present a concise and clear “take home” message avoiding repetition of concepts already expressed 32 . The authors should also avoid excessive generalizations of the implications of the study and remember that except for RCT there can only be testable hypotheses and observed associations, rather than rigorous proof of cause and effect 42 . Possible implications for current clinical practice or recommendations should be addressed only if appropriate.

Finally, the areas for possible improvement with future studies should be addressed avoiding ambiguous comments such as “there is a need for further research” and if there is a real need for further studies on the topic it is strongly advisable to be specific about the type of research suggested.

Acknowledgements

All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in an Acknowledgements section 9 . The authors should, therefore, add a statement on the type of assistance, if any, received from the sponsor or the sponsor’s representative and include the names of any person who provided technical help, writing assistance, editorial support or any type of participation in writing the manuscript.

In addition, “when submitting a manuscript authored by a group, the corresponding author should clearly indicate the preferred citation and identify all individual authors as well as the group name. Journals generally list other members of the group in the Acknowledgments. The NLM indexes the group name and the names of individuals the group has identified as being directly responsible for the manuscript; it also lists the names of collaborators if they are listed in Acknowledgments” 9 .

The first suggestion is to follow the journal’s policies and formatting instructions, including those for books and web-based references. Other general considerations related to references, including the following ones, can be found in the Uniform Requirements 9 .

References to review articles are an efficient way to guide readers to a body of literature but they do not always reflect original work accurately. Papers accepted but not yet published should be designated as “in press” or “forthcoming” and information from manuscripts submitted but not accepted should be cited in the text as “unpublished observations”.

Avoid using abstracts as references and citing a “personal communication” unless it provides essential information not available from a public source. In this case the name of the person and date of communication should be cited in parentheses in the text. Do not include manuscripts “in submission”

In addition it is important to remember that “authors are responsible for checking that none of the references cite retracted articles except in the context of referring to the retraction. Authors can identify retracted articles in MEDLINE by using the following search term, where pt in square brackets stands for publication type: Retracted publication [pt] in PubMed” 9 . Last but not least, remember that if a reviewer does not have access to any references he or she can ask the author for a full (pdf) copy of the relevant works.

Tips for successful revision of a manuscript

Most papers are accepted after some degree of revision. In some cases, a manuscript may be rejected after internal and editorial review only.

The process of revising a manuscript and successfully responding to the comments of reviewers and Editor can be challenging. Little has been published addressing the issue of effectively revising a manuscript according to the (minor or major) comments of reviewers. This topic was recently extensively and pragmatically covered by James M. Provenzale 46 . The ten principles for revising a manuscript suggested by the author are reported in Table IV .

Ten principles for revising a manuscript suggested by James M. Provenzale 46 .

Many manuscripts are not published simply because the authors have not followed the few simple rules needed to write a good article. We hope that this paper provides the reader with the basic steps to build a draft manuscript and an outline of the process needed for publishing a manuscript. However, in Table V we summarise the ten principles we strongly recommend to comply with in order to improve the likelihood of publication of a scientific manuscript 47 .

Ten principles to improve the likelihood of publication of a scientific manuscript, suggested by James M. Provenzale 47 .

The Authors declare no conflicts of interest.

• 1. Audisio RA, Stahel RA, Aapro MS, et al. Successful publishing: how to get your paper accepted. Surg Oncol. 2009;18:350–6. doi: 10.1016/j.suronc.2008.09.001. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 2. Singer AJ, Hollander JE. How to write a manuscript. J Emerg Med. 2009;36:89–93. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2007.09.056. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 3. Scherer RW, Langenberg P, von Elm E. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;2:MR000005. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000005.pub3. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 4. Sprague S, Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, et al. Barriers to full-text publication following presentation of abstracts at annual orthopaedic meetings. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A:158–63. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200301000-00024. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 5. Murphy MF, Brunskill S, Stanworth S, et al. The strength and the weaknesses of the evidence base for transfusion medicine. ISBT Sci Ser. 2007;2:204–8. [ Google Scholar ]
• 6. Dalziel K, Round A, Stein K, et al. Do the findings of case series studies vary significantly according to methodological characteristics? Health Technol Assess. 2005;9:1–202. doi: 10.3310/hta9020. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 7. Kronick DA. A History of Scientific and Technical Periodicals: the Origins and Development of the Scientific and Technical Press 1665–1790. 2nd ed. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow; 1976. [ Google Scholar ]
• 8. Barron JP. The uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals recommended by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Chest. 2006;129:1098–9. doi: 10.1378/chest.129.4.1098. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 9. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals. [Last accessed on 24/10/2012]. Updated April 2010. Available at: http://www.icmje.org/urm_full.pdf .
• 10. Rennie D. CONSORT revised: improving the reporting of randomized trials. JAMA. 2001;285:2006–7. doi: 10.1001/jama.285.15.2006. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 11. Moher D, Fortin P, Jadad AR, et al. Completeness of reporting of trials published in languages other than English: implications for conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. Lancet. 1996;347:363–6. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(96)90538-3. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 12. Junker CA. Adherence to published standards of reporting: a comparison of placebo-controlled trials published in English or German. JAMA. 1998;280:247–9. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.3.247. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 13. Chan AW, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting of randomised trials published in PubMed journals. Lancet. 2005;365:1159–62. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)71879-1. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 14. Lai TY, Wong VW, Lam RF, et al. Quality of reporting of key methodological items of randomized controlled trials in clinical ophthalmic journals. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2007;14:390–8. doi: 10.1080/09286580701344399. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 15. Hopewell S, Dutton S, Yu LM, et al. The quality of reports of randomised trials in 2000 and 2006: comparative study of articles indexed in PubMed. BMJ. 2010;340:c723. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c723. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 16. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c869. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c869. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 17. CONSORT. Transparent Reporting of Trials. [Accessed on 27/10/2012]. Available at: http://www.consort-statement.org/home/
• 18. Pocock SJ, Collier TJ, Dandreo KJ, et al. Issues in the reporting of epidemiological studies: a survey of recent practice. BMJ. 2004;329:883. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38250.571088.55. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 19. Tooth L, Ware R, Bain C, et al. Quality of reporting of observational longitudinal research. Am J Epidemiol. 2005;161:280–288. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwi042. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 20. Guyatt G, Schünemann HJ, Cook D, et al. Applying the grades of recommendation for antithrombotic and thrombolytic therapy. Chest. 2004;126:S179–87. doi: 10.1378/chest.126.3_suppl.179S. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 21. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Med. 2007;4:e296. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 22. STROBE Statement. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology. [Accessed on 27/10/2012]. Available at: http://www.strobe-statement.org/index.php?id=strobe-home .
• 23. Holmes DR, Jr, Hodgson PK, Nishimura RA, Simari RD. Manuscript preparation and publication. Circulation. 2009;120:906–13. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.752782. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 24. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Blackmore H, Kitas GD. Writing a narrative biomedical review: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors. Rheumatol Int. 2011;31:1409–17. doi: 10.1007/s00296-011-1999-3. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 25. Green BN, Johnson CD, Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. J Chiropr Med. 2006;5:101–17. doi: 10.1016/S0899-3467(07)60142-6. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 26. Oxman AD, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH. Users’ guides to the medical literature, VI. How to use an overview. JAMA. 1994;272:1367–71. doi: 10.1001/jama.272.17.1367. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 27. Mulrow CD. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med. 1987;106:485–8. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-106-3-485. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 28. Wieseler B, McGauran N. Reporting a systematic review. Chest. 2010;137:1240–6. doi: 10.1378/chest.09-2625. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 29. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 30. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. 2011. [Accessed on 24/10/2012]. Available at: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org/
• 31. Chernick V. How to get your paper accepted for publication. Paediatr Respir Rev. 2012;13:130–2. doi: 10.1016/j.prrv.2011.02.004. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 32. Veness M. Strategies to successfully publish your first manuscript. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2010;54:395–400. doi: 10.1111/j.1754-9485.2010.02186.x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 33. Wager E. Recognition, reward and responsibility: why the authorship of scientific papers matters. Maturitas. 2009;62:109–12. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2008.12.001. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 34. Committee on Publication Ethics. Guidelines. [Accessed on 24/10/2012]. Available at: http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines .
• 35. O’Connor TR, Holmquist GP. Algorithm for writing a scientific manuscript. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2009;37:344–8. doi: 10.1002/bmb.20329. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 36. Rosenfeldt FL, Dowling JT, Pepe S, Fullerton MJ. How to write a paper for publication. Heart Lung Circ. 2000;9:82–7. doi: 10.1046/j.1444-2892.2000.00031.x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 37. Johnson TM. Tips on how to write a paper. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2008;59:1064–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2008.07.007. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 38. Manske PR. Structure and format of peer-reviewed scientific manuscripts. J Hand Surg Am. 2006;31:1051–5. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2006.06.018. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 39. McKay M. Strategies to successfully publish your first manuscript [letter] J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2011;55:101–2. doi: 10.1111/j.1754-9485.2010.02236.x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 40. Jacques TS, Sebire NJ. The impact of article titles on citation hits: an analysis of general and specialist medical journals. JRSM Short Rep. 2010;1:2. doi: 10.1258/shorts.2009.100020. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 41. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000100. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 42. Chipperfield L, Citrome L, Clark J, et al. Authors’ Submission Toolkit: a practical guide to getting your research published. Curr Med Res Opin. 2010;26:1967–82. doi: 10.1185/03007995.2010.499344. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 43. Blood Transfusion. Instruction to authors. [Accessed on 24/10/2012]. Available at: http://www.bloodtransfusion.it/linee.aspx .
• 44. Neill US. How to write a scientific masterpiece. J Clin Invest. 2007;117:3599–602. doi: 10.1172/JCI34288. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 45. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. Oct, 2008. [Accessed on 24/10/2012]. Available at: http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/17c.pdf .
• 46. Provenzale JM. Revising a manuscript: ten principles to guide success for publication. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195:W382–7. doi: 10.2214/AJR.10.5553. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 47. Provenzale JM. Ten principles to improve the likelihood of publication of a scientific manuscript. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188:1179–82. doi: 10.2214/AJR.06.1003. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• View on publisher site
• PDF (791.3 KB)
• Collections

Similar articles

Cited by other articles, links to ncbi databases.

• Download .nbib .nbib
• Format: AMA APA MLA NLM

Add to Collections

A Guide on How to Write a Manuscript for a Research Paper

This article teaches how to write a manuscript for a research paper and recommended practices to produce a well-written manuscript.

For scientists, publishing a research paper is a huge accomplishment; they typically spend a large amount of time researching the appropriate subject, the right material, and, most importantly, the right place to publish their hard work. To be successful in publishing a research paper, it must be well-written and meet all of the high standards.

Although there is no quick and easy method to get published, there are certain manuscript writing strategies that can help earn the awareness and visibility you need to get it published.

In this Mind The Graph step-by-step tutorial, we give practical directions on how to write a manuscript for a research paper, to increase your research as well as your chances of publishing.

What is the manuscript of a research paper?

A manuscript is a written, typed, or word-processed document submitted to a publisher by the researcher. Researchers meticulously create manuscripts to communicate their unique ideas and fresh findings to both the scientific community and the general public. 

Overall, the manuscript must be outstanding and deeply represent your professional attitude towards work; it must be complete, rationally structured, and accurate. To convey the results to the scientific community while complying with ethical rules, scientific articles must use a specified language and structure.

Furthermore, the standards for title page information, abstract structure, reference style, font size, line spacing, margins, layout, and paragraph style must also be observed for effective publishing. This is a time-consuming and challenging technique, but it is worthwhile in the end.

How to structure a manuscript?

The first step in knowing how to write a manuscript for a research paper is understanding how the structure works. 

Title or heading

A poorly chosen title may deter a potential reader from reading deeper into your manuscript. When an audience comes across your manuscript, the first thing they notice is the title, keep in mind that the title you choose might impact the success of your work.

Abstracts are brief summaries of your paper. The fundamental concept of your research and the issues you intend to answer should be contained within the framework of the abstract. The abstract is a concise summary of the research that should be considered a condensed version of the entire article.

Introduction

The purpose of the research is disclosed in the body of the introduction. Background information is provided to explain why the study was conducted and the research’s development.

Methods and materials

The technical parts of the research have to be thoroughly detailed in this section. Transparency is required in this part of the research. Colleagues will learn about the methodology and materials you used to analyze your research, recreate it, and expand concepts further. 

This is the most important portion of the paper. You should provide your findings and data once the results have been thoroughly discussed. Use an unbiased point of view here; but leave the evaluation for your final piece, the conclusion.

Finally, explain why your findings are meaningful. This section allows you to evaluate your results and reflect on your process. Remember that conclusions are expressed in a succinct way using words rather than figures. The content presented in this section should solely be based on the research conducted.

The reference list contains information that readers may use to find the sources you mentioned in your research. Your reference page is at the end of your piece. Keep in mind that each publication has different submission criteria. For effective reference authentication, journal requirements should be followed.

Steps on how to write a manuscript for a research paper

It is not only about the format while writing a successful manuscript, but also about the correct strategy to stand out above other researchers trying to be published. Consider the following steps to a well-written manuscript:

1. Read the author’s guide

Many journals offer a Guide for Authors kind of document, which is normally printed yearly and is available online. In this Guide for Authors, you will discover thorough information on the journal’s interests and scope, as well as information regarding manuscript types and more in-depth instructions on how to do the right formatting to submit your research.

2. Pay special attention to the methods and materials section

The section on methods and materials is the most important part of the research. It should explain precisely what you observed in the research. This section should normally be less than 1,000 words long. The methods and materials used should be detailed enough that a colleague could reproduce the study.

3. Identify and describe your findings

The second most crucial aspect of your manuscript is the findings. After you’ve stated what you observed (methods and materials), you should go through what you discovered. Make a note to organize your findings such that they make sense without further explanation.

4. The research’s face and body

In this part you need to produce the face and body of your manuscript, so do it carefully and thoroughly. 

Ensure that the title page has all of the information required by the journal. The title page is the public face of your research and must be correctly structured to meet publication requirements. 

Write an introduction that explains why you carried out the research and why anybody should be interested in the results (ask yourself “so what?”). 

Concentrate on creating a clear and accurate reference page. As stated in step 1, you should read the author’s guide for the journal you intend to submit to thoroughly to ensure that your research reference page is correctly structured.

The abstract should be written just after the manuscript is finished. Follow the author’s guide and be sure to keep it under the word limit.

5. Rapid Rejection Criteria double-check

Now that you’ve completed the key aspects of your research, it’s time to double-check everything according to the Rapid Rejection Criteria. The “Rapid Rejection Criteria” are errors that lead to an instantaneous rejection. The criteria are:

• The answered question was not interesting enough
• The question has been satisfactorily answered before
• Wrong hypothesis
• The method cannot address the hypothesis
• Research is underpowered
• Contradictory manuscript
• The conclusion doesn’t support the data

Rewrite your manuscript now that you’ve finished it. Make yourself your fiercest critic. Consider reading the document loudly to yourself, keeping an ear out for any abrupt breaks in the logical flow or incorrect claims.

Your Creations, Ready within Minutes!

Aside from a step-by-step guide to writing a decent manuscript for your research, Mind The Graph includes a specialized tool for creating and providing templates for infographics that may maximize the potential and worth of your research. Check the website for more information. 

Subscribe to our newsletter

Exclusive high quality content about effective visual communication in science.

About Jessica Abbadia

Jessica Abbadia is a lawyer that has been working in Digital Marketing since 2020, improving organic performance for apps and websites in various regions through ASO and SEO. Currently developing scientific and intellectual knowledge for the community's benefit. Jessica is an animal rights activist who enjoys reading and drinking strong coffee.

Content tags

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan-.

StatPearls [Internet].

How to write and publish a scientific manuscript.

Martin R. Huecker ; Jacob Shreffler .

Affiliations

Last Update: October 31, 2022 .

• Definition/Introduction

A clinician should continuously strive to increase knowledge by reviewing and critiquing research papers and thoughtfully considering how to integrate new data into practice. This is the essence of evidence-based medicine (EBM). [1]  When new clinical queries arise, one should seek answers in the published literature. The ability to read a scientific or medical manuscript remains vitally important throughout a clinician's career. When gaps exist in the literature, clinicians should consider researching these questions. Though typically performed by academic doctors or physician-scientists, medical research is open to all clinicians in informal and formal methods. Anyone who treats patients can collect data on outcomes to assess the quality of care delivered (quality improvement is research). [2]  Though beyond the scope of this chapter, many resources provide instruction for clinicians on conducting research and contributing to medical science. [3] [4] [5]  Additionally, a clinician integrating a new practice can study its effects on patient outcomes retroactively or prospectively. Continuous practice improvement need not be shared with the larger population of treating providers. Still, dissemination to the entire scientific community allows widespread adoption, criticism, or further testing for replication of findings.

• 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

• Develop a research question
• Perform a literature search
• Identify a gap in the literature
• Design a study protocol (including personnel)
• Submit to an institutional review board for approval
• Collect, responsibly store, and then analyze data
• 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)
• 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]

• Review Questions
• Access free multiple choice questions on this topic.
• Comment on this article.

Disclosure: Martin Huecker declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.

Disclosure: Jacob Shreffler declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.

This book is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ), which permits others to distribute the work, provided that the article is not altered or used commercially. You are not required to obtain permission to distribute this article, provided that you credit the author and journal.

• Cite this Page Huecker MR, Shreffler J. How To Write And Publish A Scientific Manuscript. [Updated 2022 Oct 31]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan-.

In this Page

Bulk download.

• Bulk download StatPearls data from FTP

Related information

• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Similar articles in PubMed

• The future of Cochrane Neonatal. [Early Hum Dev. 2020] The future of Cochrane Neonatal. Soll RF, Ovelman C, McGuire W. Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov; 150:105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
• Rules to be adopted for publishing a scientific paper. [Ann Ital Chir. 2016] Rules to be adopted for publishing a scientific paper. Picardi N. Ann Ital Chir. 2016; 87:1-3.
• Telemedicine for the Medicare population: pediatric, obstetric, and clinician-indirect home interventions. [Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ)...] Telemedicine for the Medicare population: pediatric, obstetric, and clinician-indirect home interventions. Hersh WR, Wallace JA, Patterson PK, Shapiro SE, Kraemer DF, Eilers GM, Chan BK, Greenlick MR, Helfand M. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ). 2001 Aug; (24 Suppl):1-32.
• Review Evidence Brief: The Quality of Care Provided by Advanced Practice Nurses [ 2014] Review Evidence Brief: The Quality of Care Provided by Advanced Practice Nurses McCleery E, Christensen V, Peterson K, Humphrey L, Helfand M. 2014 Sep
• Review Culture of Care: Organizational Responsibilities. [Management of Animal Care and ...] Review Culture of Care: Organizational Responsibilities. Brown MJ, Symonowicz C, Medina LV, Bratcher NA, Buckmaster CA, Klein H, Anderson LC. Management of Animal Care and Use Programs in Research, Education, and Testing. 2018

Recent Activity

• How To Write And Publish A Scientific Manuscript - StatPearls How To Write And Publish A Scientific Manuscript - StatPearls

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

The different stages in the manuscript publication process

Submitting a manuscript to an academic journal is a big step. It is also the beginning of a complex publication process in which a manuscript goes through different stages. In each stage, the status of a manuscript change s. Understanding this process is pivotal for academic researchers.

Overview of stages when publishing a manuscript

The meaning of ‘manuscript submitted’, the meaning of ‘manuscript under consideration’, the meaning of ‘manuscript under review’, the meaning of ‘manuscript accepted’, the difference between ‘accepted’ and ‘forthcoming’, the difference between ‘accepted’ and ‘in press’, the difference between ‘forthcoming’ and ‘in press’, do i include submitted articles on my academic cv, do i include accepted articles on my academic cv, how do i know the current status of my manuscript, can i contact the journal editor about the status of my manuscript.

Most academic journals use online systems, such as Manuscript Central ™, to manage the submission and peer review of articles. These systems also tend to indicate the stage or status of a manuscript.

Academic researchers with little publishing experience may be confused when they see their manuscripts’ (changing) status. But with a bit of information, manuscript stages are quite easy to understand.

A good understanding of the different stages a manuscript goes through during the publication process provides academic researchers with peace of mind. Furthermore, it allows them to correctly indicate the status of their manuscripts, for instance on their academic CV .

Not every journal indicates the same stages. However, the general ‘road’ from a submitted manuscript to a published academic article looks as follows:

In reality, this ‘road’ or manuscript publication process is not as linear as illustrated in the figure above. A manuscript under consideration can be, for instance, desk-rejected by a journal editor . This means that authors will have to start again and submit their manuscripts to a different journal.

A manuscript may also not pass the peer review stage or may have to undergo several rounds of revisions before it is finally accepted.

Therefore, it is crucial to consistently present your best work when submitting a manuscript to a journal. This entails thorough editing. Professional publication support, such as the services provided by Editage , can greatly enhance your chances of acceptance. You can receive a 30% discount on their services if you sign up via Master Academia .

When a manuscript is ‘submitted’, it means that the manuscript has been sent to an academic journal to be considered for publishing. Most journals use online systems to administer submissions and to convey assessments and reviews of the manuscript to its author/s.

After submitting a manuscript, authors usually receive an email from the journal confirming the receipt of the submission. If not, it may be worth sending a short email to the journal editor or editorial assistant just to double-check.

Many online submission systems allow authors to log in via their ORCID IDs , which makes the process more efficient: with an ORCID ID, there is no need to set up new usernames and passwords for every single journal.

For some journals, briefly after submission, the status of a manuscript changes to ‘under consideration’. A manuscript ‘under consideration’ means that one of the journal’s editors is assessing whether the manuscript fulfils all requirements and could be a good fit for the journal thematically.

Therefore, exploring journals’ aims and scopes is a fundamental step when selecting a journal for publication .

A manuscript under consideration indicates a different stage than peer review. Finding good peer reviewers can be challenging. Therefore, journal editors do not send all submitted manuscripts to peer reviewers. Instead, they often have a quick look at submissions themselves, before deciding whether manuscripts qualify for peer review or not.

When a manuscript is ‘under review’, it has been sent to external peer reviewers and the journal editor awaits these peer reviewers’ assessments. This stage is often the longest one in the manuscript publication process. It can last from a few weeks to several months.

Thus, when the status of a manuscript is ‘under review’, authors have to be patient! That said, if they have not heard back from the journal after several months, it is perfectly fine to send a friendly email to ask for a status update on the peer review process.

You may also like: Types of editorial decisions after peer review (+ how to react)

Once journal editors receives the assessment of external peer reviewers, they decide whether or not to accept the manuscript for publication. When a manuscript status changes to ‘accepted’, it means that it will most likely be published in the academic journal.

However, there can be caveats. Manuscripts can be accepted with major or minor revisions , which – at times – require substantial changes. And even if a manuscript is accepted with minor revisions, a journal can still refuse to ultimately publish it.

A ‘manuscript accepted’ is a huge reason to celebrate! In most cases, ‘accepted’ manuscripts will result in a published journal article. However, it is good to be aware that journals have no legal obligation to publish manuscripts, even if their status is ‘accepted’.

The meaning of ‘article forthcoming’

When a manuscript or article is indicated as ‘forthcoming’, it means that it has been accepted by a journal for publication and that the authors wait for the production process to start.

Despite a publishing agreement between authors and journal editors, manuscripts are not always published immediately. Sometimes, the journal waits until more articles are accepted so that they can be compiled in an issue. Other times, it simply takes some time for the production process to start.

The difference between an accepted and a forthcoming academic article is often unclear, and many academic researchers use these status indications interchangeably. However, when an article is ‘forthcoming’, it generally means that all required manuscript revisions are completed and approved by the journal editor/s. ‘Accepted’ manuscripts, on the other hand, can still undergo changes.

The meaning of ‘article in press’

The last bit of uncertainty of whether a manuscript will be published or not disappears when an article is ‘in press’. When an article is ‘in press’, it is in the production stage in which the journal administers final formatting, spelling and reference checks.

The difference between a manuscript that has been ‘accepted’ and a manuscript ‘in press’ is the certainty of the latter that it will result in a publication. An ‘accepted manuscript’ still runs the risk of not resulting in a journal publication, albeit a very small one. When an article is ‘in press’, its publication is certain and just a matter of administration. This administration tends to take less than two weeks.

The difference between a ‘forthcoming’ article and an article ‘in press’ is very small, and the status descriptions are often used interchangeably. ‘In press’ tends to have a stronger connotation to the final production stage in the publication process, which means that the published articles can be expected within a matter of days or several weeks at most. A ‘forthcoming’ article, however, may take longer to be published.

FAQs on the status of manuscripts

It is not common practice to include submitted manuscripts on academic CVs. However, as publication processes can be lengthy, listing submitted manuscripts can be useful for some researchers. Early career researchers with few publications to their name, for example, can benefit from showcasing their submitted articles to highlight their (future) research potential. If the decision is made to include submitted articles on an academic CV, it is very important to clearly indicate their status by separating them from *real* publications with a separate headline.

It is common practice to include accepted articles on academic CVs, as the likelihood of publication of accepted articles is very high. That said, it is very important to indicate the status of accepted manuscripts correctly. It should be crystal clear if listed articles are not published yet.

The current status of a manuscript can usually be found in the online submission system of the journal. If the online system does not provide any information on the manuscript status, or if the journal does not use online system, authors can send an email to the journal to inquire about the manuscript status. However, it is good to be patient and not advised to contact the journal already a week or two after submitting a manuscript.

It is absolutely legitimate to contact the journal editor and ask about the status of a manuscript. However, it is important to keep in mind that the publication process (and particularly the peer review stage) can take a long time. Therefore, is advised to wait around three months before asking a journal for a status update.

Master Academia

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.

Subscribe and receive Master Academia's quarterly newsletter.

Completing a master's degree: What's next? How to devise a plan for the future

10 powerful methodology courses for phd students [online], related articles.

Co-authorship guidelines to successfully co-author a scientific paper

Public speaking in academia and how to practice it

Dealing with failure as a PhD student

Minor revisions: Sample peer review comments and examples

Research Manuscript Structure: Understanding Different Parts of a Manuscript

Writing a research manuscript and publishing it in reputed academic journals is an integral part of the research process. Yet, with rejection rates of top-tier journals ranging as high as 80%-95%, this is easier said than done. 1 Research manuscripts need to meet several key submission requirements to even be considered, this includes getting the structure of scientific papers right. However, most researchers find themselves feeling overwhelmed when it comes to writing a manuscript. The lack of formal training on writing a research manuscript, especially how to structure a manuscript effectively makes this a daunting task, especially for early-career researchers.

While there are no quick and easy shortcuts to writing a manuscript for publication, this article explains how researchers can sort their research under different sections and present their findings effectively in a well-structured research manuscript.

Structuring a research paper logically

Presenting research findings in a clear and structured way helps readers quickly understand your work’s significance and potential impact. Writing a manuscript that is worded well in simple English is imperative as you write for a global audience, many of which may not have English as the first language. Experts suggest following the standard and globally accepted IMRaD (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) structure for research manuscripts. The ideal length for a research manuscript can range from 25-40 pages depending on your journal, with specific lengths for each section. 2

Understanding the key parts of a manuscript 2,3

Breaking down your work into these clear parts of a manuscript allows you to organize your findings more coherently and ensure a logical flow, which makes your research manuscript more engaging for readers.

Introduction – Covers what are you studying and why (1.5-2 pages)

This is an important part of the research manuscript as itstates the purpose of your research and what you want to achieve, existing knowledge on the topic and its limitations, and the significance and usefulness of the work. The introduction should mention the research question, the rationale for the research study, and describe the theoretical framework used. It should also offer a background of the problem and what is known so far and explain how your research contributes to the subject by adding citations to support this view. Avoid adding too many or irrelevant citations here or you may risk losing the plot, which is a red flag for editors and reviewers.

Remember, the introduction must be a concise summary of the work being presented in the research manuscript; do not to go into extensive details at this point. Take care not to mix methods, results, discussion, or conclusion in the introduction section – it’s important to keep these parts of a manuscript separate to ensure a coherent and logical flow between sections.

Methodology – Covers how you conducted the study in about 2-3 pages

One of the most critical parts of the manuscript, the methods section is meant to highlight how the problem was studied and communicates the methods, procedures, and research tools used. Be sure to describe the methodology you followed to conduct the research simply, precisely, and completely. If you’re using a new method, include all the details required for others to reproduce it, but if you’re working with established methods, it is enough to summarize these with key references. Poor methodology, small sample size, incomplete statistical analysis are all reasons why reviewers recommend rejection of a research manuscript, so check and recheck this to ensure it is flawless.

Include accurate statistics and control experiments to ensure experiments are reproducible and use standard academic conventions for nomenclature, measurement units, and numbers. Avoid adding any comments, research results, or discussion points in this part of the manuscript. It’s a good idea to write the methods section in the same flow and order in which you did the research. Supplement the text with visuals like tables, figures, photographs, or infographics that convey complex data, but don’t duplicate the information in the text.

Results – Covers the main findings of your studying in about 6-8 pages

The results section is a key part of the manuscript and isdedicated to presenting the primary and secondary findings of your research study. While writing a manuscript, ensure you spend extra time and attention while drafting the results; after all, this is the most important part of your research manuscript and your entire research effort.

Share your main results as text and use tables and figures to present findings effectively (don’t explain the data again in text). Avoid generalizations and use actual data to explain the results in your research manuscript – for example, instead of saying temperature rose as we applied more pressure, say temperature rose by 10 degrees with a 20% increase in pressure. Be sure to highlight any unexpected findings but avoid using too many technical terms or jargon so it is easy for readers from other research disciplines and non-scientific backgrounds to understand. Most importantly, this part of the manuscript is reserved for your research findings so do not include references to previously published work here.

Discussion – Covers what your research findings mean in about 4-6 pages

This is a crucial part of a manuscript where you interpret the results of your research and showcase its significance. The discussion in your research manuscript is a chance to showcase (not reiterate or repeat) your research results and how they address the original question. Do not suddenly include new information, instead talk about the limitations, whether the data supports the hypothesis or is consistent with previous studies, or if the findings were unexpected.

You may choose to mention alternate ways to interpret the results but avoid interpretations that are not supported by your research findings. Finally, compare your work with previously published studies, highlight what is new and what further research will be required to answer questions raised by the results. A well-written discussion section is essential to help differentiate your work from existing studies, which is what makes it critical to get right.  

Conclusion – Covers learnings from the research study in one short para

Check your journal guidelines before writing the conclusion. For some journals, this is a separate section whereas in others it is the concluding part of the discussion part of the manuscript. This section of the research manuscript should explain the outcomes of the research in relation to the original objective, presenting it from global and specific perspectives. Avoid simply listing the results or repeating the abstract or introduction sections, provide a justification of your work and suggest further experiments and if any of these are in progress.  

Title & Abstract – Covers highlights of the research done

The title and abstract are what readers use to evaluate whether the information provided in the research manuscript is relevant enough for them to read and cite. This is true for editors and reviewers of your research manuscript as well. Spend some time thinking of an interesting title, one that is informative, concise, and unambiguous. Write a well-structured abstract that highlights the objective and purpose of the research, addresses the key results precisely, and briefly describes the conclusion of the study (usually in under 250 words). This is the first and possibly only chance to draw in your readers so keep it simple and specific, avoid using jargon or being repetitive as you’re writing for a wide, varied audience.

In addition to the sections mentioned above, there are other key parts of a manuscript that require deep thought and time to put together. Showcase your findings through tables and figures (one per page) and format the references correctly (2-4 pages) in your research manuscript. Finally, when writing your research manuscript, be sure to follow the guidelines provided by the journal or institute you will be submitting to. Keep to the recommended paper length and journal formats when writing a manuscript for it to be considered and taken forward for publication.

References:

• Khadilkar SS. Rejection Blues: Why Do Research Papers Get Rejected? The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of India, August 2018. Available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6046667/
• Borja A. 11 steps to structuring a science paper editors will take seriously. Elsevier Connect, June 2014. Available at https://www.elsevier.com/connect/11-steps-to-structuring-a-science-paper-editors-will-take-seriously
• Vadrevu A. Manuscript structure: How to convey your most important ideas through your paper. Editage Insights, November 2013. Available at https://www.editage.com/insights/manuscript-structure-how-to-convey-your-most-important-ideas-through-your-paper

Related Reads:

• How to Write a Research Paper Outline: Simple Steps for Researchers
• Manuscript Withdrawal: Reasons, Consequences, and How to Withdraw Submitted Manuscripts
• Good Writing Habits: 7 Ways to Improve Your Academic Writing
• Supplementary Materials in Research: 5 Tips for Authors

Top 5 Ethical Considerations in Research

Continually vs. continuously: the fine line between the two words, you may also like, online ai writing tools: cost-efficient help for dissertation..., how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write an abstract in research papers..., how to write dissertation acknowledgements, how to write a high-quality conference paper, measuring academic success: definition & strategies for excellence, phd qualifying exam: tips for success , ai in education: it’s time to change the..., is it ethical to use ai-generated abstracts without..., what are journal guidelines on using generative ai....