Scientific Manuscript Writing

“The secret of getting ahead is getting started.”

Attributed to Mark Twain

Haven't started writing yet?

Check out these guides and resources for some serious "how-to":

• • Literature Searches and Methodology 2010 (Lecture to Fellows 2010; I Douglas, MD)

  • Manuscript preparation and wiriting - AJR 2005

  • Writing up your results - Chest 2009

• Writing a structured Discussion Section - BMJ 

  • How to write a scientific masterpiece JCI 2007.pdf

  • Me write pretty one day JCB 2004.pdf

• The Science of Scientific Writing » Scientific American

• How to write a scientific paper - Rita Gemayel

• Writing a cover letter (Nature Immunology)

• Writing a first Grant Proposal (Nature Immunology)

Tips on Manuscript Peer Reviewing

I Reccomend

• How I Review an Original Scientific Article; Frederic G. Hoppin, Jr.

• Manuscript Rejection and how to submit a revision: Sandra V. Kotsis, M.P.H.

Published in The Appendix, newsletter of the Health Sciences Library is a UC Denver http://hsclibrary.uchsc.edu/newsletter/archives/appendixDEC08.html

Manuscript review is a common task for many academic professionals and students. But rarely do the uninitiated receive guidance on how to do the job well. Peer review – the evaluation process conducted by the author's "equals" - is fundamental to scholarly communication. Increasingly, with the growth of publications and manuscript submissions, editors need reviewers to help them make objective decisions about the fate of submitted papers.

At the same time, review of manuscripts can be a time-consuming and thankless task. Why then would you want to become a reviewer? Reasons vary and may include loyalty to a journal or its editor, learning about new findings, or improving one's literature-evaluation skills. Most volunteer because they consider providing their expert opinion an honor and a privilege.

Depending on the publication, the editor may have unique requirements on what he seeks from reviewers but there are a number of characteristics common to almost every review process.

Three excellent articles –

"How to Review a Manuscript: A ‘Down To Earth' Approach;"

"Manuscript Peer Review- A Guide for Health Care Professionals,"

"Tracking the Peer-Review Process" have the following suggestions.

As you browse through the paper for the first time, consider these questions:

Are you able to conduct the review? Is there a possibility that you may have to recuse yourself? Reasons may include:

• • having a conflict of interest that may prevent fair and objective assessment of the work,

  • having time constraints that will not allow you meet the editorial deadline,

  • insufficient knowledge of the topic to conduct a well-informed review.

  • Is the submission a good fit for this journal's readership and its mission? Is the subject or the style of writing appropriate?

  • Is there cause for outright rejection? Is the paper incoherently written, is it confusing, or so flawed in any other way?

With subsequent, more critical readings ask the following questions:

• • How relevant and important are the findings in this paper? The NEJM editorial summarizes the key qualities as "freshness," "clinical impact," and "timeliness."

  • If the paper meets the criteria of relevancy and importance, but is still not up to publishable level, how can the author revise and improve it?

While the reviewer provides recommendations, unlike a referee she does not decide on the editorial course of action. In most cases there are two or more reviewers per paper, and at times they reach different conclusions. The final say, therefore, goes to the editor.

The peer-review process is similar, some say to the process clinicians experience: an attending physician requests consultations from colleagues, but she makes the ultimate clinical decision based on the patient's best interest. An editor requests input from reviewers and he makes an editorial decision in the best interest of the publication.

For more information, try reading the cited articles or search the PubMed database using these terms: "Peer Review, Research/methods"[Mesh] or "Peer Review, Research/standards"[Mesh].