Introduction
A health professions career that includes inquiry, innovation, or discovery often includes the preparation of manuscripts for peer-review publication. Research findings should be communicated broadly. The most enduring way for our work to have an impact is through publication. Unfortunately, the onus of preparing manuscripts can discourage even the brightest investigators from publishing more of their work. Some investigators resort to having ghost writers or graduate students do their writing. While we know we should be publishing more, many of us did not receive sufficient instruction on how to prepare manuscripts for peer reviewed publications.
The purpose of this mini-review is to kick-start your manuscript preparation by reviewing what key questions to answer concisely in your manuscript. Brevity and conciseness rules the day — remember, this is not creative writing!
Structure and Outline
The structure of a manuscript, as recommended by the International Committee Medical Journal Editors, is listed below. First, use this structure to develop a detailed outline in bulleted form. The recommended bullets under the introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections are summarized in this mini-review.
Title page Conflict of Interest Notification Page Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion References Tables Illustrations (Figures) Legends for Illustrations (Figures)
Convene the co-authors to discuss the outline and to achieve consensus. Begin to list references to be cited. A detailed outline will enable co-authors to agree on structure, organization, flow, and main points. Starting with an agreed-upon outline to prepare the first draft makes the initial writing much easier, and the subsequent reviewing and editing more efficient.
The Introduction
Use the introduction section to inform the reader of the purpose and relevance of the paper. Do not waste the reader’s time “educating” them on the topic or convincing them you mastered the literature. Be focused: in the introduction answer the following questions:
What is the problem, gap, or opportunity and why is it important? What is known/unknown about this problem? (summarize previous research) What are the limitations of previous research? (critique) How do we address the limitations and what is the purpose of this study? (Research question)
Strive for conciseness — one paragraph for each question is sufficient. The literature review does not need to be comprehensive but authoritative and strategic. Cite key articles and authors in the field. The review of previous work should not be construed as negative criticism (even if it were warranted). The reviewer may be a trusted colleague of the author being critiqued. Fill knowledge gaps by “building upon” the hard work of others.
The Methods
The methods section will be read critically by readers interested in the quality of the study, the validity of the results, and the replication of study methods. The peer reviewer will be interested in quality and validity. Assuming epidemiologic studies of human subjects, in the methods section describe following areas:
Study design (subsection heading) Time frame (cross sectional, prospective, retrospective); and Design approach (cross sectional, cohort, case-control).
Subject selection (subsection heading) Selection criteria (inclusion and exclusion); Sampling design; and Recruitment and retention.
Measurements (subsection heading) Outcome variables; Exposure (predictor) variables; and Confounders and effect modifiers.
Statistical issues (subsection heading) Hypotheses; Sample size and power; and Analytic approach.
The Results
In the results section describe findings from having tested a priori hypotheses, or findings that are relevant, new, or unexpected. Be cautious with new or unexpected findings since these may represent spurious results and may not hold up in future investigations. The description of the key findings should be concise and correspond to order of the tables and figures.
The Discussion
The discussion section provides the opportunity to synthesize the findings with other research, to put the findings into context, and to be creative and persuasive with your interpretation and synthesis. For the discussion section, answer the following questions:
Key findings: What did the study find? Interpretation: What do the results mean and how strongly do you believe the results? Prior agreements/disagreements: How do the results compare with prior knowledge? Strengths: What were the strengths of the study? Limitations: What were the limitations of the study? Implications: What are the scientific/clinical implications of the study? Next steps: What are the next steps?
Summary
The purpose of this mini-review was to kick-start preparing your research manuscript. First, construct a detailed outline, and relevant tables and figures. Second, achieve consensus from co-authors on the outline, tables, and figures. Third, compose concise paragraphs. And fourth, submit to co-authors for initial reviews.
To learn more, read Publishing and Presenting Clinical Research, Second Edition by Warren S. Browner (Permalink: http://amzn.com/0781795060).
