Writing Workshop

Writing Workshop
22 August 2018
Faculty of Medical Science
Naresuan University
Phitsanulok, Thailand
Plan for this afternoon
1:00pm Introduction and ice-breaking
1:15pm Basics of a Journal Article
2:15pm Coffee break
2:30pm Some common writing mistakes to avoid
2:50pm Publishing a Journal Article
3:10pm General Q & A
4:00pm End
Part 1 - Basics of a Journal Article
https://play.kahoot.it/#/k/dd8ed2bf-3294-
4f76-8df1-d48399b9d582
Q1, Q2, Q3
Ice-breaking
The before steps
• Scientific writing can be a daunting and often procrastinated “last
step” in the scientific process
• Leads to cursory attempts to get scientific arguments and results
down on paper
• Writing is not an afterthought and should begin well before drafting
the first outline
• Successful writing starts with:
-Researching how your work fits into existing literature
-Crafting a compelling story
-Determining how to best tailor your message to an intended audience
https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/bes2.1258
Q4
Search engines
Literature Review
• Perform a thorough literature search using a credible search engine.
• Ask the following questions:
-What do we know about the topic?
-What open questions and knowledge do we not yet know?
-Why is this information important?
• This will provide critical insight into the structure and style that others
have used when writing about the field and communicating ideas on this
specific topic.
• It will also set you up to successfully craft a compelling story, as you will
begin writing with precise knowledge of how your work builds on previous
research and what sets your research apart from the current published
literature.
“If you don’t have time to read, you don’t
have the time (or the tools) to write.
Simple as that.”
-Stephen King
Q5
Audience
Understand your audience (and write to them)
• In order to write effectively, you must identify your audience and decide what story you
want them to learn.
• Writing about science as a narrative (story) is often not done, largely because you were
probably taught to remain dispassionate and impartial while communicating scientific
findings.
• The purpose of science writing is not explaining what you did or what you learned, but
rather what you want your audience to understand.
• Start by asking:
-Who is my audience?
-What are their goals in reading my writing?
-What message do I want them to take away from my writing?
• The most effective science writers are familiar with the background of their topic, have a
clear story that they want to convey, and effectively craft their message to communicate
that story to their audience.
Q6, Q7
Introduction
Introduction: Structure
• The Introduction sets the tone of the paper by providing relevant
background information and clearly identifying the problem you plan to
study.
• Think of your Introduction as the beginning of a funnel: Start wide to put
your research into a broad context that someone outside of the field would
understand, and then narrow the scope until you reach the specific
question that you are trying to answer.
• Clearly state the wider implications of your research for the field of study,
or, if relevant, any societal impacts it may have, and provide enough
background information that the reader can understand your topic.
• Perform a thorough review of the literature; however, do not parrot
everything you find. Background information should only include material
that is directly relevant to your research and fits into your story; it does not
need to contain an entire history of the field of interest.
Q8
Hourglass
Introduction: Knowledge gap
• Upon narrowing the background information presented to arrive at
the specific focus of your research, clearly state the problem that
your Journal Article addresses.
• The problem is also known as the knowledge gap, or a specific area of
the literature that contains an unknown question or problem (EG, it is
unclear why cowbird nestlings tolerate host offspring when they must
compete with host offspring for food)
• The knowledge gap tends to be a small piece of a much larger field of
study. Explicitly state how your work will contribute to filling that
knowledge gap.
This is a crucial section of your
manuscript; your discussion and
conclusion should all be aimed at
answering the knowledge gap that
you are trying to fill. In addition,
the knowledge gap will drive the
question(s) that you design your
experiment to answer.
Q9
Citations
Introduction: Citations
• As a very general rule, every sentence in your Introduction should
include at least one citation
• Include in‐text citations in the format of (Author, year published) for
each Journal Article that you cite and avoid using the author's name
as the subject of the sentence:
Introduction: Final Paragraph
• Define the question(s) you wish to address, state the approach of
your experiment, and provide a 1–2 sentence overview of your
experimental design, leaving the specific details for the Methods
section.
• If your Methods are complicated, consider briefly explaining the
reasoning behind your choice of experimental design.
• Here, you may also state your system, study organism, or study site,
and provide justification for why you chose this particular system for
your research.
• Is your system, study organism, or site a good representation of a
more generalized pattern?
Q10
Methods
Methods: Basics
• The Methods section is arguably the most straightforward section to
write.
• You can even begin writing it while performing your experiments to
avoid forgetting any details of your experimental design
• In order to make your Journal Article as clear as possible, organize the
Methods section into subsections with subheadings for each
procedure you describe (e.g., field collection vs. laboratory analysis).
• Reuse these headers in your Results and Discussion to help orient
your readers.
Methods: Purpose
• The aim of the Methods section is to:
1. demonstrate that you used scientifically valid methods and
2. provide the reader with enough information to recreate your
experiment
• In chronological order, clearly state the procedural steps you took,
remembering to include the model numbers and specific settings of
all equipment used (EG, centrifuged in Beckman Coulter Benchtop
Centrifuge Model Allegra X -15R at 12,000 × g for 45 minutes).
• In addition to your experimental procedure, describe any statistical
analyses that you performed.
Methods: Structure
The things you include in your Methods will vary based on your experimental design.
Common ones:
Site characterization
• Study organism used, its origin, any pre-experiment handling or care
• Description of field site or site where experiment was performed
Experimental design
• Step-by-step procedures in paragraph form
• Sample preparation
• Experimental controls
• Equipment used, including model numbers and year
• Important equipment settings (e.g., temperature of incubation, speed of centrifuge)
• Amount of reagents used
• Specific measurements taken (e.g., wing length, weight of organism)
Statistical analyses conducted
• Specific tests (e.g., ANOVA, linear regression)
Methods: Citations
• If you followed a procedure described in another Journal Article, cite that
article and provide a general description of the method. There is no need
to copy every detail, unless you deviated from the source and changed a
step in your procedure.
• However, it is important to provide enough information that the reader can
follow your methods without referring to the original source.
• As you explain your experiment step by step, you may be tempted to
include qualifiers where sources of error occurred (e.g., the tube was
supposed to be centrifuged for 5 minutes, but was actually centrifuged for
10). However, generally wait until the Discussion to mention these
subjective qualifiers and avoid discussing them in the Methods section.
Q11
Active voice
Methods: Style
• The Methods section should be written in past tense.
• While it is generally advisable to use active voice throughout the
paper you may want to use a mixture of active and passive voice in
the Methods section in order to vary sentence structure and avoid
repetitive clauses.
Q12
Results
Results: Structure
• The Results section provides a space to present your key findings in a
purely objective manner and lay the foundation for the Discussion section,
where those data are subjectively interpreted.
• First, identify which graphs, tables, and data are absolutely necessary for
telling your story.
• Then, craft a descriptive sentence or two that summarizes each result,
citing the corresponding table and/or figure.
• Rather than presenting the details all at once, write a short summary about
each data set.
• If you carried out a complicated study, try dividing your results into
multiple sections with clear subheadings following the sequence used in
the Methods section.
Results: Describing findings
• As you present each finding, be as specific as possible and describe
your data biologically rather than through the lens of statistics.
• While statistical tests give your data credibility by allowing you to
attribute observed differences to nonrandom variation, they fail to
address the actual meaning of the data.
• Instead, translate the data into biological terms and refer to statistical
results as supplemental information, or even in parentheses
(brackets).
Results: Citing statistics
For example, if your dependent variable changed in response to a
treatment, report the magnitude and direction of the effect, with the P-
value in parentheses.
“By day 8, cowbirds reared with host young were, on average, 14% heavier
than cowbirds reared alone (unpaired t16 = −2.23, P = 0.041, Fig. 2A).”
Results: Citing figures
Figure 1. Size
Size difference
between the
bird and the bat
Bird Bat
Q13
Figures
https://unilearning.uow.edu.au/report/2bv1.html
Q14
Discussion
Discussion: Basics
• The Discussion section usually requires the most consideration, as
this is where you interpret your results.
• Your Discussion should form a self-contained story tying together
your Introduction and Results sections.
• One option is to begin by summarising the main findings and specific
results of your research.
• After the opening paragraph of your Discussion, try addressing your
research question with specific evidence from your results.
Discussion: Knowledge gap
• Remind the reader of the knowledge
gap identified in the Introduction to
re-spark curiosity about the question
you set out to answer.
• Then, explicitly state how your
experiment moved the field forward
by filling that knowledge gap.
Q15
Interpretations
Discussion: Several interpretations
• If there are several possible interpretations of a result, clearly lay out each
competing explanation.
• EG, In the cowbird example, a higher feeding rate in the presence of host
offspring could indicate either (1) that the parents were more responsive to
the begging behaviour of their own species or (2) that the collective
begging behavior of more offspring in the nest motivated the host parents
to provide additional food (Kilner et al. 2004).
• Presenting and evaluating alternative interpretations of your findings will
provide clear opportunities for future research.
• However, be sure to keep your Discussion concrete by referring to your
results to support each given interpretation.
Discussion: Citations
• Mix with these interpretations, reference preexisting literature and report
how your results relate to previous (other researcher’s) findings.
• Ask yourself the following questions:
-How do my results compare to those of similar studies?
-Are they consistent or inconsistent with what other researchers have found?
• If they are inconsistent, discuss why this might be the case. For example,
are you asking a similar question in a different system, organism, or site?
Was there a difference in the methods or experimental design?
• Any caveats of the study (e.g., small sample size, procedural mistakes, or
known biases in the methods) should be transparent and briefly discussed.
Discussion: Conclusion
• The conclusion, generally located in its own short section or the last paragraph of
the Discussion, represents your final opportunity to state the significance of your
research.
• Rather than merely restating your main findings, the conclusion should
summarize the outcome of your study in a way that incorporates new insights or
frames interesting questions that arose as a result of your research.
• Broaden your perspective again as you reach the bottom of the hourglass.
• While it is important to acknowledge the shortcomings or caveats of the research
project, generally include these near the beginning of the conclusion or earlier in
the Discussion.
• You want your take-home sentences to focus on what you have accomplished and
the broader implications of your study, rather than your study’s limitations or
shortcomings.
• End on a strong note.
Q16
Abstracts
Abstract: When to write
• Writing an abstract can be difficult because you are tasked with
condensing tons of work into such a small amount of space.
• To make things easier, write your abstract last.
• Read through your entire paper and distil each section down to its
main points.
• Sometimes it can be helpful to answer this question through a
subtractive process. For example, if you are trying to distil down your
results, simply list all your findings and then go through that list and
start crossing off or consolidating each finding until you are left with a
only the most crucial results.
http://mitcommlab.mit.edu/broad/commkit/journal-article-abstract/
Abstract: Purpose
• The title and abstract are the primary medium through which
interested readers will find your work amidst the deluge of scientific
publications, posters, or conference talks.
• When a fellow scientist happens upon your abstract they will quickly
skim it to determine if it is worth their time to dive into the main
body of the paper.
• The main purpose of an abstract, therefore, is to contextualize and
describe your work in a concise and easily-understood manner. This
will ensure that your scientific work is found and read by your
intended audience.
Abstract: Structure
Clarity is achieved by providing
information in a predictable
order: successful abstracts
therefore are composed of 6
ordered components which are
referred to as the “abstract
formula”.
Abstract: Structure
• General and Specific Background (~1 sentence each). Introduce the area of
science that you will be speaking about and the state of knowledge in that area.
Start broad in the general background, then narrow in on the relevant topic that
will be pursued in the paper. If you use jargon, be sure to very briefly define it.
• Knowledge Gap (~1 sentence). Now that you’ve stated what is already known,
state what is not known. What specific question is your work attempting to
answer?
• “Here we show…” (~1 sentence). State your general experimental approach and
the answer to the question which you just posed in the “Knowledge Gap” section.
• Experimental Approach & Results (~1-3 sentences). Provide a high-level
description of your most important methods and results. How did you get to the
conclusion that you stated in the “Here we show…” section?
• Implications (~1 sentence). Describe how your findings influence our
understanding of the relevant field and/or their implications for future studies.
Q17
Abstract start
Title: Importance
The title of your manuscript is usually the first introduction readers
(and reviewers) have to your work.
Therefore, you must select a title that grabs attention, accurately
describes the contents of your manuscript, and makes people want to
read further.
https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/authorandreviewertutorials/writing-a-journal-manuscript/title-abstract-and-
keywords/10285522
Q18
Title
Title: Make it effective
1) Does Vaccinating Children and Adolescents with Inactivated Influenza Virus Inhibit the Spread of
Influenza in Unimmunized Residents of Rural Communities?
This title has too many unnecessary words.
2) Influenza Vaccination of Children: A Randomized Trial
This title doesn’t give enough information about what makes the manuscript interesting.
3) Effect of Child Influenza Vaccination on Infection Rates in Rural Communities: A Randomized Trial
This is an effective title. It is short, easy to understand, and conveys the important aspects of the
research.
keywords/10285522
• Convey the main topics of the study
• Highlight the importance of the research
• Be concise
• Attract readers
Writing a good title for your manuscript can be challenging.
First, list the topics covered by the manuscript. Try to put all of
the topics together in the title using as few words as possible.
A title that is too long will seem clumsy, annoy readers, and
probably not meet journal requirements.
keywords/10285522
Think about why your research will be of interest to other scientists.
This should be related to the reason you decided to study the topic. If
your title makes this clear, it will likely attract more readers to your
manuscript.
TIP: Write down a few possible titles, and then select the best to refine
further. Ask your colleagues their opinion. Spending the time needed to
do this will result in a better title.
keywords/10285522
Title: Attract citations
https://wordvice.com/best-title-for-journal-manuscript/
Part 2 - Some common writing mistakes to avoid
https://play.kahoot.it/#/k/64608bd0-586f-
4c2b-a944-7f04e6697fdd
Q1
Word choice
1) Word Choice - don’t try to show off!
• Word choice is critical for effective storytelling.
• Rather than peppering your report or manuscript with overly
complicated words, use simple words to lay the framework of your
study and discuss your findings.
• Eliminating any flourish and choosing words that get your point
across as clearly as possible will make your work much more
enjoyable to read.
Q2
Pronouns
2) Avoid pronouns – and avoid confusion
In scientific writing the use of pronouns should be avoided to avoid
ambiguity (confusion).
Example:
• The pelican is a bird that feeds by filter feeding. Consequently it has a large
and deep beak.
• The pelican is a bird that feeds by filter feeding. Consequently pelicans
have a large and deep beak.
This is a very simple example, and in the first two sentences it would be
easily understood that "it" refers to the pelican. But as the text becomes
more complicated ambiguity can easily arise, so avoiding pronouns is a good
rule to follow.
Q3, Q4
Articles
3) Take care with articles – a/the
If you are not confident, revise the grammar rules for

articles while writing your Journal Article
4) Avoid repeats - Try hard to avoid redundancy
Re-read your writing multiple times to check you don’t have repeats.
• Often students will write two sentences saying the same thing, just
written in a different way.
• Often students will write two paragraphs saying the same thing, just
written using different words and a different sentence order.
Using simple words will help you identify areas of repetition. Ask the
questions:
Is this sentence really adding anything new?
Is this paragraph really adding anything new?
Q5, Q6, Q7
Redundancy
Precise words
5) Be SPECIFIC – give precise details
Give precise details: e.g. don’t say “a lot of species” or “a large number
of species” give the exact number of species
Q8
Prove
6) Scientists cannot “prove” things
7) Fixed phrases - On the other hand..
• Never use the phrase “on the other hand”, it is rarely appropriate and
almost always used incorrectly by students.
• Other “fixed phrases” which you might have learned in English class
should also be avoided in scientific writing.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/on-the-other-hand
Q9
Adjectives/Nouns
8) Using nouns as adjectives
When you use a noun as an adjective e.g. “bee (adj) diversity (noun)”,
you always use the singular form i.e. “bee diversity”, not “bees
diversity”. Another way to say it (perhaps more correct, but long
winded, is “the diversity of bees”. In this case in is the plural “bees” not
singular “bee”. I know it is difficult, but practice is only way to learn it.
9) Delete all lead-ins
‘In the modern world, global warming is one of the most popular topics
causing many environmental difficulties and tough challenges arising
from its serious consequences.’
10) Keep it short and simple
• A Journal Article is not a university assignment with a minimum word
count.
• Keep your article as a short as possible, don’t worry that it is too
simple.
• Trying to “bulk out” your article (particularly the Discussion) with
repeats and irrelevant information will not fool the reviewers but will
probably annoy them.
Q10
Drafts
It will take 30 drafts before your Journal
Article is ready to submit
Re-reading, re-reading and re-reading your paper and incorporating
constructive feedback from others will make the difference between
getting a paper accepted or rejected from a journal
• Where are the gaps in your story structure?

• What has not been explained clearly?
• Where is the writing awkward, making it difficult to understand your
point?
Consider reading the paper out loud first, and then print and edit a
hard copy to inspect the paper from different angles.
Self-editing
GLOBAL
• On the first run-through of your paper, make sure you addressed all of the main
ideas of the study. One way to achieve this is by writing down the key points you
want to hit prior to re-reading your paper.
• If your paper deviates from these points, you may need to delete some
paragraphs. In contrast, if you forgot to include something, add it in.
PARAGRAPH BY PARAGRAPH
• To check the flow of your paragraphs, verify that a common thread ties each
paragraph to the preceding one, and similarly, that each sentence within a
paragraph builds on the previous sentence.
SENTENCE BY SENTENCE
• Finally, re-read the paper with a finer lens, editing sentence structure and word
choice as you go to put the finishing touches on your work. Grammar and spelling
are just as important as your scientific story; a poorly written paper will have
limited impact regardless of the quality of the ideas expressed.
Part 3 - Publishing a Journal Article
• Choosing a Journal
• The cover letter
• The response to reviewers letter
Choosing a Journal
Where to start
• Firstly, talk to your supervisor, colleagues, and friends and ask them for recommendations. You should also go to
your library and check journal and publisher websites.
• Then, a good way to narrow your focus is to find out which journals publish articles related to your research. What
do you regularly read? Could one of those journals be a good fit for your paper?
Refine your shortlist
Once you have a shortlist, you can refine it by asking the right questions:
• Do I want to publish my article in a general-interest journal, where it can reach a wide readership? Or will
publishing in a specialist journal be a more effective way for my research to reach the right audience?
• Do I want to publish my work in an international journal, or is my research region-specific?
• Do I want to publish my article in a high-impact journal, or am I more interested in reaching a specific group of
readers?
• What’s the journal’s peer-review policy? Am I happy for my work to be reviewed in this way?
• What’s the submission process?
• Do I want publish my work in a learned society journal?
• Do I want to publish my work open access?
https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/how-to-choose-a-journal/
Anyone got a title and abstract yet?
Towards monitoring the sandflies (Diptera: Psychodidae) of Thailand: DNA barcoding the sandflies of Wihan
Cave, Uttaradit.
Polseela R1,2, Jaturas N1,3, Thanwisai A1,2, Sing KW4,5, Wilson JJ4,5.
Abstract
Sandflies vary in their distributions and role in pathogen transmission. Attempts to record distributions of
sandflies in Thailand have faced difficulties due to their high abundance and diversity. We aim to provide an
insight into the diversity of sandflies in Thailand by (i) conducting a literature review, and (ii) DNA barcoding
sandflies collected from Wihan Cave where eight morphologically characterized species were recorded. DNA
barcodes generated for 193 sandflies fell into 13 distinct species clusters under four genera (Chinius,
Idiophlebotomus, Phlebotomus and Sergentomyia). Five of these species could be assigned Linnaean species
names unambiguously and two others corresponded to characterized morphospecies. Two species represented
a complex under the name Sergentomyia barraudi while the remaining four had not been recognized before in
any form. The resulting species checklist and DNA barcode library contribute to a growing set of records for
sandflies which is useful for monitoring and vector control.
KEYWORDS:
DNA barcoding; Thailand; leishmaniasis; sandflies
Choosing a journal
• https://journalfinder.elsevier.com/
• https://www.edanzediting.com/journal-selector
The cover letter
Please don’t worry about cover letters, it is the manuscript that is
important. Editors will not be making decisions on the basis of cover
letters, they might not even look at them. An editor will read your
abstract to decide if your article is a fit for the journal.
Don’t imagine there are magic tricks.
If you are submitting to really high IF Journal, you could see this
detailed advice:
https://wordvice.com/journal-submission-cover-letter/
The response to reviewers
• Recognize that the reviewers are volunteers and used their time to work hard on your paper. Thanking the reviewers for their time
is not just good manners; it helps the communication to be positive and productive.
• Respond to every single comment. Even trivial typos should be acknowledged. That not only helps ensure you don’t miss
something, but tells the reviewers and the editor that you were careful and diligent.
• For your convenience and the reviewers, it helps to number each comment. If you can use different fonts or formatting for the
comments and your replies, the response letter will be easier to read and evaluate.
• Keep your responses, short, direct, and to the point. This is no place for philosophy or speculation. A simple “Done.” is a terrific
response, as is “Please see our response to comment 7 from reviewer 1.”
• Always accept responsibility. When comments are wrong, take ownership by suggesting the reviewer missed the point because
the presentation was unclear.
• If you cannot, or choose not to, make the requested change, carefully explain why not. First check the editor’s summary to see if
this is listed as a required change. Note that some reviewers will interpret an explanation of “this change would take too much
effort” to be another way of saying “I am too lazy.” And be aware that the reviewer may take this response as a reason to reject the
paper or ask for another revision.
• Make sure to highlight new material, and tell the reviewers exactly where it is. Be sure to check the page numbers after all
changes are finished, because the new material may move during editing.
• Most journals send all reviews and responses to all reviewers. So if two reviewers contradict each other, it’s okay to point that out
explicitly. Politely. For example, “reviewer 2 asked for just the opposite, so we are trying to split the middle by ...”
• If you change authors during a revision, be sure to inform the editor. Adding an author is usually non-controversial, but removing
an author is. Most journals will ask for an email from the former author to ensure that the change was handled in an open and
professional manner.
https://cs.gmu.edu/~offutt/stvr/26-3-May2016.html

Writing Workshop

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Writing Workshop

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Writing Workshop

This title has too many unnecessary words.

2) Influenza Vaccination of Children: A Randomized Trial

If you are not confident, revise the grammar rules for

• Where are the gaps in your story structure?

You might also like