Scientif C Writing: A Step-By-Step Guide

Scientif
c
Writing
A step-by-step guide
The simple
truth...
Publish in English or
PERISH
Publishing is the major
marker of productivity
in academia
Title
The scientifc
manuscript
For every person who reads the whole paper,
about 500 read only the title so...
...catch the eye of prospective readers
Title
The scientifc manuscript

Ask
yourself
What is the single most important point

made in this paper?
Title

Advice
Use short, declarative sentences rather than

neutral sentences
Influence of aspirin on human megakaryocyte

prostaglandin synthesis
Inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis as a

mechanism of action of aspirin-like drugs
(Nature)
Title

Advice
Use verbs instead of abstract nouns for

the sake of dynamics
Treatment of polycystic ovary syndrome
How to treat polycystic ovary syndrome
Title

Advice
Avoid abbreviations
Ocs o-t-c? (The Lancet)

Oral contraceptives over-the-counter?
Omit all waste words because indexing

and abstracting services depend on the
accuracy of the title
Title

Advice
If the study is of a particular species,

name it in the title
(e.g., narrative review, randomized control trial)
Check the targeted journal
Running
Title

Advice
The main words in the running title should

be identical to words in the main title
Check
the targeted journal
Keywords

Rules
to be followed
To facilitate the indexing of published

papers, supply a list of the key words that
reflect the most important aspects of your
paper
Advice
Check the targeted journal
Abstract

Rules
to be followed
It
should not be longer than specified in the

Instructions for Authors
It
should use the format specified in the Instructions

for Authors (i.e., continuos vs. structured)
It
should be self-contained and able to stand alone
Omit all references to the literature and to tables or figures
Omit abbreviations and acronyms
Abstract

Advices
As you write the abstract, keep the title of

your paper in front of you
When the abstract is complete, compare

it with the title of your paper
Abstract

Advices
State why you embarked on the project

A gap in the literature?
A debate in the literature?
A persistent social problem?
State what your study was about objective

State how you did your study methodology
State what you found in your study findings
State what conclusions you drawed from your
study argument
Introduction

Ask
yourself
What places your research in the context

of earlier relevant work done by others?
What supports the decision to perform

your study?
What are the implications of your study?
Introduction

Ask
yourself
What is your argument?
The argument is a thread that runs through your

dissertation
The argument is a coherent series of statements
in which the author leads the reader from certain
premises to a particular conclusion
An argument has at least two parts: (1) a claim and

(2) some evidence for that claim
A hypothesis is part of an argument
Introduction

Ask
yourself
How to test if you have an argument
Statements to which you can coherently respond I

agree or I disagree
Statement: This article reviews factors that facilitate
or hinder successful coping with HIV, including
preexisting psychological functioning, medical health
status, quality and adequacy of social support, stress
and coping style, and perceived expected benefits of
treatment.
Argument: This article contends that group
psychotherapy aimed at developing a positive selfidentity is valueable for those individuals coping with
the challenges posed by their HIV-positive serostatus.
Introduction

Ask
yourself
How to write an argument-driven article?

Remember
that publishable articles are

argumentative, not representative
Do not write like a detective collecting data

BUT
Write like a lawyer arguing a case
Introduction

Drafting
your argument
Write the argument of the article

List what evidence you are bringing to bear to
prove your argument
Share your argument with three other people to
get suggestions for revision
Some
should be in your field

Some should be outside of it
Introduction

Reviewing
your article for argument
Do I state my argument early and clearly?

Have I organized my introduction around my
argument?
Have I organized the body of my article around
my argument?
Have I presented evidence related to my
argument?
Do I restate my argument in the conclusionr?
Introduction

Advices
The writing-up should be organized

around an argument that links all aspects
of the research process from problem
formulation, through literature review and
the presentation of research methods, to
the discussion and conclusion
Avoid opening sentences that are vacuous

and evasive
Introduction

Advices
Avoid writing an introduction that is too

long
Most medical coomunications are difficult

to read. To determine why, contributions to
three issues of the New England Journal of
Medicine were studied and the prose
analyzed. (New England Journal of Medicine)
Cite papers from the past couple of years

that form the immediate basis for your
study
Brainy et al. (2007) and references therein
Introduction

Advices
Begin by introducing the reader to the

pertinent literature
Continue by stating clearly the scope and

objectives of the study
End by mentioning the implications of

your results
Methods

Ask
yourself
What is your research design?
What is your test setting?
How was access achieved (if relevant)?
What is your sampling approach?
What are your independent, dependent, and control variables?
How you proceeded with your analysis?
Methods

Advice
Use checklists like PRISMA (Preferred

Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and
Meta-Analyses), CONSORT (Consolidated
Standards of Reporting Trials), or JARS
(Journal Article Reporting Standards)
Match methods subheads to results
subheads
Describe and defend the choices that you
have made
Results

Rules
to be followed
Refer to each illustration immediately after

you describe the results that are comprised in
that illustration
BUT
Do not repeat the data within the text
Use the text merely to point out the trends or
highlight the significance of some of the most
interesting data
Results

Rules
to be followed
Indicate where, in the text, each illustration

should be printed
Standardize tables so that they appear the

same way throughout
Use a table only if the complexity of the data

warrants it
Edward Tufte the Galileo of Graphics
Results

Advices
Build your manuscript around the argument

and the results section which provides the
evidence to support your argument
Only provide results that pertain directly to

the title of the paper and that relate to your
argument
Results
Advices
Provide
Point
illustrations (i.e., tables, diagrams, figures, graphs)
to particularly salient aspects of the illustrations
Titles
of illustrations should describe the variables that

appear as well as the type of data presented
Use
flowcharts (especially in reporting of the randomized

controlled trials)
Results
Advices
Report
the number of dropouts and their reasons for

withdrawal
Report
the number of participants who were lost to follow-up

and describe their characteristics as at the last examination
Describe
the controls just as thoroughly as the participants

from the treated or exposed group
Report
the size of the effects for the readers to be able to

judge the clinical importance of the results
Results

Advices
Do not give a reference for statistics in common use

Do not give a formula for statistics in common use
When reporting inferential statistics, include
sufficient information to allow the reader
To
fully understand the conducted analyses

To confirm the basic reported analyses
To enable the construction of effect-size estimates and
confidence intervals beyond those supplied in the
paper
When using a statistical term in the narrative, use

the term, not the symbol
Discussion

Ask
yourself
How do your results illuminate your

research question?
Are there alternative explanations for your
findings?
What are the implications of your findings
for the argument and the research
questions that have driven your research?
Discussion

Rules
to be followed
Resist the temptation to overanalyze and

overinterpret your results
Do not repeat what you have written in the

introduction section beyond a single
introductory sentence that places your results
in an appropriate context
Do not introduce new results from your study

in the discussion section
Discussion

Rules
to be followed
Insert a paragraph about critical assessment:

shortcomings in study design, limitations in
methods, flaws in analysis, or validity of
assumptions
Insert a paragraph on comparisons with other
studies: start comparisons with studies
consistent with your own, continue with
studies less consistent, end with studies
contradicting your findings
Insert a paragraph on possible implications of
your findings and suggestions for future
research
Discussion

Advices
Try to keep it as concise as possible

Discuss each of your results in the same
order as you presented them in the results
section
Present the significance and the novelty of
your results
BUT
Be careful in claims about causality
Discussion

Advices
Begin
by stating your working hypothesis

Continue by discussing whether the working
hypothesis has been confirmed or not, and if not,
speculate about some possible reasons for and
the implications of their refutation
End by considering the present and future
impact of your results and of the conclusion
drawn from them
You could also mention the practical implications of your
research
You could also mention the experiments that you plan to
perform or are currently performing to extend your results
Acknowledgme
nts

Thank
those who are not listed as authors but

whose efforts contributed to the research
described in the paper and to the preparation
of the paper itself
The authors thank... for...
Aknowledge
those organizations that

contributed financially to your study
Disclose
any possible conflict of interest in the

cover letter that accompanies your paper and
at the end of your aknowledgments section
References
There are few aspects of the preparation of

a manuscript that are more tedious and
irritating than correcting a list of references
that has been compiled according to an
incorrect format
Advice
Study a list of references that has already

been published in your target journal in
addition to the Instructions for Authors
References
References to papers
References to in press papers or unpublished data
Senden, T. J., Moock, K. H., Gerald, J. F., Burch, W. M.,
Bowitt, R. J., Ling, C. D., et al. (1997). The physical and
chemical nature of technigas. Journal of Nuclear
Medicine, (in press).
BlaBlaBla (unpublished results, B. Snow and A. White)
References to books
References to book chapters
References to electronic sources
JABREF opensource
MENDELEY opensource
Targeting a
Journal
The publishing process

Ask
yourself
What does your audience assume about

your subject?
Which aspect(s) of your subject do they
assume is/are still open to question?
Which aspect(s) of your subject do they
assume is/are not open to question?
Will you challenge any of these
assumptions in your paper?
Targeting a
Journal

Advices
As with any other form of communication,

you have to address the needs of your
audience
Find a way to bridge the gap between what you

want to say and what editors, reviewers, and
readers want to hear
Targeting a
Journal
Common reasons why journals

reject articles
Too
narow
With proper contextualization, nothing has a

limited purpose or limited audience
Targeting a
Journal

reject articles
Too
broad
Give pertinent examples

Give
specific examples to support your

argument
Targeting a
Journal

reject articles
Off
topic
Inappropriate subject matter
An unsuitable subject
Outside the scope of this journal

Study
the journals you want to submit to

Contact the editor
Targeting a
Journal

reject articles
Not
scholarly
Sloppy / Rudimentary / Basic / Coloquial /

Obvious
Be
meticulous about documentation

Cite recent literature
Cite relevant literature
Cite multiple sources
Reference debates in the field
Provide evidence
Provide a critical framework
Targeting a
Journal

reject articles
Not sufficiently original
No new knowledge
Duplication of already published articles
Failing to announce originality

Read in your field
Articulate originality
Claim your idea
Develop your voice
Targeting a
Journal

reject articles
Poor
structure
Poor writing / Poor presentation / Poor

organization
Surface
your structure by using summary

paragraphs, transition sentences, and
subheadings
Stick to your point by organizing your article
around a single significant idea - argument
Delete the redundant or irrelevant
Subordinate the concrete by relating the
particular usually evidence to the general
usually the theory or argument
Targeting a
Journal

reject articles
Not
signifcant
Insignificant / Unimportant / Of little merit /

Not applicable
Articulate
Select
significance
the right journal
Targeting a
Journal

reject articles
Theoretically
or methodologically
flawed
Poor conceptual design / Argument not

supported by data / Insufficient data /
Inaccurately calculated statistics /
Methodological problems / Inadequate theory
Detail
your methodology
Cite opposing views
Avoid imbalance because theory comes alive
through concrete particulars just as the concrete
becomes significant through explanatory theory
Targeting a
Journal

reject articles
Too
many misspellings and gramatical

errors
Sloppy / badly written / hastily written /

nonnative / poorly presented
Run
a spelling check
Run a grammar check
Hire an editor
Targeting a
Journal
The importance of picking the

righ journal
The
most important thing you can do to

improve your chances of publication
Stating
your argument early and clearly
The
second most important thing you can do

to improve your chances of publication
Picking the right journal

Picking the wrong journal can significantly
delay publication
Targeting a
Journal
Finding suitable academic

journals
Searching
for journals
Ask your advisor and colleagues

Check your citations and their bibliographies
Search electronic databases
Targeting a
Journal
Matching your article to

suitable journals
Does the journal have an upcoming theme or

special issue on your topic?
Journals
receive, on average, only a third as

many manuscripts for their announced theme
issues as for their regular issues
Does the journal have word or page length

limits you can meet?
There seems to be an inverse relation between

length and acceptance
Targeting a
Journal
Matching your article to

suitable journals
Does the style of your article match the journals

style?
Formal vs. Informal

Conservative vs. Progressive
Playful vs. Serious
Do you know any of the journals editors?
Before making a final decision, send a querry

letter and if the response is positive, read recent
issues
Submission
Finalizing your article

The
perils of perfection
There are diminishing returns to

perfecting your work
Learn to send your imperfect work out

into the world
Submission
Sending your article

Writing
the cover letter
Use letterhead
Name the editor
Provide the title
Include the abstract
Articulate the contribution
Describe the appeal to the readers
Submission

Writing
the cover letter
Mention the journal

Offer warrants
Authorship
Ownership
Publication
Submission
Submission

Writing
the cover letter
Give the word count

Mention any permissions
Mention any funding
Include your full contact information
Submission

Writing
the cover letter
Miscellaneous
Protection
of human subjects
Conflicts of interests
Reviewers
Submission

Putting
your article in the journals
style
Preparing
the fnal print or

electronic version
Submission
Sending your
article
Submission
on paper
Submission
on CD
Electronic
submission
Response

Acceptance
Celebrate :D
Acceptance
without revision
with (minor/major) revisions
Celebrate moderately! :)
Rejection
Outright
with an offer to reconsider
rejection
Response
Congratulations,
your paper has been
accepted!
Ethical reporting of
research results
Ethical and Legal

Standards in Publishing
Ensure replication
Ensure verification
Do not fabricate data
Do not falsify data
Do not modify results
Do not omitt observations
Data retention and

sharing
Ethical and Legal

Retain raw data for a minimum of five years

after publication
Retain instructions, treatment manuals,

procedure details, software for a minimum
of five years after publication
Provide upon request
Duplicate and
piecemeal publication
of data
Ethical and Legal

Duplicate publication the publication of the

same data or the same idea in two separate
sources
The case: brief reports
Maybe the case: manuscripts previously published in

abstracted form in the proceedings of an annual meeting
or in a periodical with limited circulation or availability
Not the case: the material that has been offered for
public sale such as conference proceedings or book
chapters; the reanalysis of published data in light of new
theories or methodologies
Duplicate and
piecemeal publication
of data
Ethical and Legal

Piecemeal
publication the unnecessary splitting of

the findings from one research endeavour into multiple
sources
Inform the editor: whether the publication of two or more

reports based on the same or closely related research
constitutes fragmented publication is a matter of editorial
judgment
Not the case: multidisciplinary projects, longitudinal studies,

large scale studies as long as the different papers make
unique scientific contributions
Consequences:
the manuscript can be rejected without

further consideration or retracted once published
Plagiarism
Ethical and Legal

Each time you paraphrase another author

by summarizing a passage or rearranging
the order of a sentence and change some of
the words, you need to credit the source in
the text this applies to written words but
also to ideas
Selfplagiarism
Ethical and Legal
When duplication of ones words or ideas is

extensive, you need to cite yourself
All of the authors own words or ideas that are cited

should be located in a single paragraph or at most
a few paragraphs, with a citation at the end of each
Open such paragraphs with a phrase like As I have

previously discussed
Conflict of
interests
Ethical and Legal

Disclose the potential positive or negative

distorting influences
The case: being the copyright holder of and/or

recipient of royalties from a psychological test;
participation on a board of directors or any other
relationship with an entity or person that is in some
way part of the paper
Not the case: holdings in a company through a

mutual fund
Authorship
Intellectual property rights

Authorship
Authorship is reserved for persons

who make a substantial contribution to and who
accept responsability for a published work
Substantial contribution formulating the
problem or hypothesis; structuring the
experimental design; conducting the statistical
analysis; interpreting the results; writing a major
portion of the paper
Minor contribution designing and building the
apparatus; advising about the statistical analysis;
collecting the data; entering the data; recruiting
participants; conducting routine observations or
diagnoses
Authorship
Intellectual property rights

Order
of authorship
The name of the principle contributor should

appear first, with subsequent names in order
of decreasing contribution
If authors played equal roles in the research
and publication, they can note this in the
auhtor note
Relative status should not determine the
order of authorship
Doctoral students should be listed as
principal author, if the paper is substantially
based on their dissertation
Writing
Basics
What makes good

writing
Good
writing communicates an idea

clearly and effectively
Good
writing communicates an idea

elegantly and stylish
Writing
Basics
What makes a good

writer
Having
something to say
Having
a logical and clear thinking
Knowing
style
a few simple, learnable rules of
Writing
Steps to becomingBasics
a good
writer
Write
to engage your readers
Read
and imitate
Revise.
Nobody gets it perfect on the
first try.
Cut
ruthlessly. Never become too

attached to your words.
Take
risks. Find your voice as a writer.
Writing
Basics
Inform and persuade the
reader
Know your reader and write for your reader

Eliminate unnecessary redundancy
Avoid digressions
Avoid overstatements
Dont generalize unnecessarily
Simpler words are preferred over complex words
Simpler sentences are preferred over complex
sentences
Use affirmative rather than negative constructions
Use transitions
Cite sources
Proofread your paper carefully
Writing
Basics
Aim for economy
because instead of based on the fact that

for or to instead of for the purpose of
there were several subjects who completed
it is suggested that a relationship may exist
both alike
one and the same
a total of n subjects
four different groups
absolutely essential
Writing
Basics
Aim for economy
found previously
small in size
in close proximity
very close to zero
much better
period of time
summarize briefly
the reason is because
also included
except for
Writing
Basics
Aim for precision
patient or gymnast instead of subject
concentration or frequency instead of level
Writing
Basics
Grammar usage Parallel Construction
Between and And
Correct: We recorded the difference between the

performance of subjects who completed the first task
and the performance of those who completed the
second task.
Incorrect: We recorded the difference between the

performance of subjects who completed the first task
and the second task.
Writing
Basics
Both and And
Correct: The names were difficult both to pronounce

and to spell.
Incorrect: The names were both difficult to pronounce
and spell.
Never use both with as well as. The resulting

construction is redundant.
Correct: The names were difficult to pronounce as well

as to spell.
Incorrect: The names were difficult both to pronounce
as well as to spell.
Writing
Basics
Neither and Nor / Either and Or
Correct: Neither the responses to the auditory stimuli

nor the responses to the tactile stimuli were
repeated.
Incorrect: Neither the responses to the auditory
stimuli nor the tactile stimuli were repeated.
Correct: The respondents either gave the worst answer
or gave the best answer.
Correct: The respondents gave either the worst answer
or the best answer.
Incorrect: The respondents either gave the worst
answer or the best answer.
Writing
Basics
Not only and But also
Correct: It is surprising not only that pencil-andpaper scores predicted this result but also that all other
predictors were less accurate.
Incorrect: It is not only surprising that pencil-andpaper scores predicted this result but also that all other
predictors were less accurate.
Writing
Basics
Elements in a series should also be parallel in form
Correct: The participants were told to make

themselves comfortable, to read the instructions, and to
ask about anything they did not understand.
Incorrect: The participants were told to make

themselves comfortable, to read the instructions, and
that they should ask about anything they did not
understand.
Writing
Basics
Spelling Preferred
Spelling
Singular
Plural
Appendix
Appendices
Criterion
Criteria
Datum
Data
Phenomenon
Phenomena
Freuds
The
Freuds
Brevity
Common clutter
Dead
weight words and phrases
As it is well known
As it has been shown
It can be regarded that
It should be emphasized that
Empty
words and phrases
Basic tenets of
Unnecessary
jargon and acronyms

Repetitive words or phrases
Brevity
Common clutter
Wordy version
A majority of
A number of
Are of the same
opinion
Less frequently
occurring
All three of the
Give rise to
Due to the fact that
Have an effect on
Crisp version
Most
Many
Agree
Rare
The three
Cause
Because
Affect
Brevity
Exercises
This
paper provides a review of the

basic tenets of cancer biology study
design, using as examples studies that
illustrate the methodologic challenges
or that demonstrate successful
solutions to the difficulties inherent in
biological research.
This paper reviews cancer biology
study design, using examples that
illustrate the challenges and solutions.
Brevity
Exercises
As
it is well known, increased athletic

activity has been related to a profile of
lower cardiovascular risk, lower blood
pressure levels, and improved
muscular and cardio-respiratory
performance.
Increased
athletic activity is
associated with lower cardiovascular
risk, lower blood pressure, and
improved fitness.
Brevity
Exercises
Our research, designed to test the fatal
effects of PGF2alpha on dogs, was
carried out by intravenously introducing
the drug. In the experiments, a
relatively small quantity, 30 mg, was
administered to each animal. In each
case, PGF2alpha proved fatal; all 10
dogs expiring before a lapse of five
minutes after the injection.
Logic &
Clarity
Exercises
Young
mature Sprague Dawley rats

(200 g) (Charles River Italia) were
used.
The
rats used in this experiment

were obtained from Charles River
Breeding Laboratories and were
derived from the Sprague Dawley
strain. The animals were sexual
mature, 100 days old, and
weighed 190 to 215 g.
Take home messages

Start
early
How
to present and justify the research questions that are driving

your research?
How to structure the theoretical and research literature that will
have been used to frame your research questions?
Be
persuasive
Persuade
your readers that your findings and conclusions are

significant and that they are plausible
Get
feedback
Get
as much feedback as possible

Respond positively to the points made
Structure
your writing
Grant
Writing
A step-by-step guide
Types of
Grants
Project grants
Primarily support research projects

Secondarily support salaries
usually
cover 20% to 25% of the principal

investigators salary
Career development grants
Primarily support salaries

usually
cover 75% to 100% of the principal

investigators salary
Funding
Sources
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

(www.ahrq.gov)
Community of Science
(www.fundingopps.cos.com)
Grantsnet
(www.grantsnet.org)
The Foundation Center

(www.fdncenter.org)
The National Institutes of Health

(www.grants.nih.gov)
To Remember
A strong proposal is in
a lottery
however
A weak proposal is
certainly dead
Read the call

Step 1: read the grant
information and conditions
What is the scope of the requested projects?
What is the time frame of the grant process?
What is the length of the grant?
Are there any special needs or unique

aspects of the grant?
Does the grant require cash or in-kind

match?
Read the call

Step 2: decide if the grant is a good
match for your organization
Are the projects granted and end-points

requested within your ability or capability to
provide?
Are these projects within the mission of your

organization?
Read the call

Step 2: decide if the grant is a good
match for your organization
Do you have the expertise to run this

project, or can you hire the expertise?
Is this a substantial deviation from your

routine or normal projects?
Read the call

Step 3: study the grant
conditions
Take notes and make an outline of the

things they are asking for
Look for keywords (so called buzz words) in

the document
Keywords usually are repeated frequently in the

document and indicate a philosophy or strategy,
which the funder wants to be followed
Read the call

Step 4: do your homework
Who is your audience?
Who will read the proposal and evaluate it?
What have they funded before?
Are there other programs in the country

which provide similar services?
Read the call

Step 4: do your homework
While you don't want to "copy" their programs,

you don't want to have to re-create the wheel
from scratch either
You also want to learn from other programs'

mistakes if possible
Do they have a philosophical orientation and

does it agree with yours?
What literature/research is available on the

topic?
Conceptualize
Step 5: conceptualize the
program
This is a critical step. It is 2/3 of the process.
Before you try to write anything, spend

some time thinking about how you would do
the program.
Get "the big picture" clear in your mind. You

may want to start by building a logic model
or drawing a flow chart.
Conceptualize
Step 5: conceptualize the
program
It is important to know:
What program components will be needed.
How these program components will be
implemented.
How each program component relates to
other program elements.
the goals of the project.
the requirements of the funder.
How the program components relate to
your existing activities.
(1st) Draft
Step 6: draft the grant
proposal
Using your concept outline and notes, clearly

explain the program you have conceptualized.
Make sure that you clearly state all the reasons

why you should be granted the funds.
Write to get the ideas down. Don't worry about

editing at this point.
(1st) Draft
proposal
Make it easy for the reader to identify what they

are reading. Clearly label each section.
Lead the reader by the hand. Tell them what

they are reading and why.
Relate each section to the others (your flow

chart and outline will help here).
Relate each program element to a goal of the

grantor.
(1st) Draft
proposal
Relate each program element to the others

and the "big picture".
Clearly spell out facets important to the

review process.
Use the buzz words where appropriate

(don't parrot).
(1st) Draft
proposal
Include research or literature reviews where

appropriate.
Write to convey ideas, don't write to sound

smart.
Assume the reader doesn't understand;

clarify, clarify, clarify.
Rest
Step 7: set the proposal aside
for a day or two
After writing the first draft, set it aside and

do something else for a day or two.
You want to get some separation from the

first draft.
Review
Step 8: read your proposal as a
reviewer
After 24-48 hours, read your proposal.
Imagine you are a reviewer.
Look at your proposal as if you knew nothing

about it.
Score your own proposal using the evaluation

criteria you outlined from the grant program
guidelines or acquired through your
communication with the program officer.
Review
reviewer
Mark areas in the proposal which confuse you or

are not clear enough
Don't try to edit them at this time, just mark

them and read on.
Take notes about what you found unclear, weak,

or missing in the proposal.
Compare your draft against any checklist

provided by the grantor.
Review
reviewer
Chech whether your proposal is clear and

complete.
Review your draft with a critical eye.
Anticipate the strongest objections and

counter them.
Demonstrate that your request is serious by

describing the specific program activities.
Review
reviewer
Clearly state the purpose and financial

request of the proposal in your cover letter.
Be confident in your approach.
Don't be apologetic.
(2nd) Draft
Step 9: using the notes from your
review, write the second draft
Now is the time to edit.
Correct areas you found weak or unclear.
Strengthen the linkages between the

sections of the proposal.
Your goal (as it was in the first draft) is to

make it easy for the reviewer.
(2nd) Draft
Think visually when you write.
Be descriptive.
Be brief.
(2nd) Draft
Use transitional expressions - words and

phrases to connect your paragraphs, as
these connectors can help you achieve
coherence in your writing.
Tell a story that has a clever beginning, an

absorbing middle and an unforgettable
ending.
Use plain language.
Feedback
Step 10: give the second draft
to other people to read
Always have an outside party review and

critique your proposal.
You are too close to the draft now to be

objective.
Give colleagues a copy of the grant

requirements, evaluation criteria, and your draft
- ask them to mark up your draft, making notes
where you confuse them or where they don't
understand the connection between a part of
the project and the overall project.
Feedback
Step 10: give the second draft
to other people to read
It is important you select someone who is

literate and who will be BRUTAL
You want honest feedback
Finalize
Step 11: using your colleague's
input, write the fnal proposal
Consider your peers input
For each point you must decide if their criticism

is valid
In the end, you must be comfortable with the

proposal
Do pay attention to the your colleague's

comments however. If you confused them you
will probably confuse the reviewer.
Triple Check
Step 12: compare your proposal with
your checklist of required items
Before delivering or mailing the final

proposal, use the checklist you prepared
when you studied the proposal.
Ensure each required item is attached,

including all mandatory appendices and
supporting documents.
Make sure you did not violate any

instructions regarding proposal length,
typeface, style, page numbering, etc.
Triple Check
If the funder required special labels or

packaging of the proposal, follow them
exactly.
Proofread the entire grant two or three

times for completeness, accuracy and
typographical errors.
Proofread your proposals in multiple

readings, looking for different features on
each reading.
Triple Check
Content
Does your proposal have enough substance?

Are your ideas complete?
Form
Is your organization logical?

Are all facts and figures accurate?
Are ideas expressed clearly?
Is the proposal design visually appealing?
Are all the major pieces of the proposal in the
proper order?
Does your draft look attractive and readable?
Triple Check
Mechanics
Are
words spelled correctly, especially proper

names?
Are
all numbers and computations accurate?
Are
sentences grammatically correct, including

subject-verb agreement?
Are
sentences punctuated properly?
Tip 1: understand the

perspective of the reviewers
Reviewers
are
intelligent
Reviewers are savvy
about research
Reviewers have a broad
fund of scientific
knowledge
BUT
Reviewers have little indepth experience in
your area of interest
Focus
Conciseness
Conceptual
clarity
Transparent language
Avoid jargon
Avoid topic-specific
abbreviations
Avoid topic-specific
terminology
Build a self-contained
proposal
Tip 2: seek guidance from the program

officer or grants administrator
Their
guidance can be invaluable in the

grant writing process
Tip 3: review successful grant

applications
For
National Institutes of Health funding

mechanisms, information on funded grants
can be obtained from the Computer Retrieval
of Information on Scientific Projects database
(www.crisp.cit.nih.gov)
Tip 4: know your audience

Find
out in advance as much as possible

about the potential reviewers
Identify
possible reviewers from the scientific

literature
Identify
possible reviewers from the websites

of foundations
Tip 5: stress the signifcance

The
importance of the proposed study

should be
communicated clearly
readily apparent to someone outside the field
Present
the burden of the problem in

quantitative terms

Demonstrate
the impact of the proposed

research on the field
Do you add to the existing body of knowledge?
Do you advance understanding?
Do you alleviate human disease and suffering?

Demonstrate
the impact of the proposed

research on the field
Why is this research important?
Why is this research innovative?
What are the implications of this research in

terms of incremental knowledge?
What are the implications of this research in

terms of paradigm shift?
Tip 6: follow all the rules

Obtain
and follow all the guidelines exactly
Institutional Review Board approval

requirements
Formatting requirements
Tip 7: get advice and input

from a biostatistician
Seek
advice early on for input about
Study design
Sample size
Data analysis
Tip 8: allow enough time for

review and revision
Set
yourself an internal deadline for

completing the application 4 to 6 weeks
before the actual deadline to allow for review
by mentors and colleagues
Tip 9: write the abstract

carefully
The
abstract should distill the essential

elements of the research project into short,
concise, and clear statements
The
abstract is the first portion of the grant

that reviewers read
The abstract must engage the interest of

reviewers immediately
The abstract must sustain the interest of

reviewers throughout
Tip 9: write the abstract

carefully
The
abstract will guide the assignment of a grant to

a particular study
The abstract should highlight the nature of the problem
The abstract should highlight the need for the research
The abstract should highlight the hypothesis to be

tested
The abstract should highlight the methods to be used
The abstract should highlight the significance and

unique features of the research
Objectives & Hypotheses
What gets a proposal

rejected
Common critiques
Underdeveloped
Poorly
focused
Overly
ambitious
Objectives & Hypotheses

rejected
Valuable
suggestions
Begin the section with a concise, accurate

synopsis of the research
Study
design
Sample size
Study groups
Primary outcomes
Continue with primary and secondary aims and

related hypotheses
Focused
Feasible
Clearly
conceptualized
Background & Signifcance

rejected
Common critiques
The section did not justify the need for the study
The section provided too much extraneous

background information
The section overstated the significance of the

study
The section is too long

rejected
Valuable
suggestions
For each background subsection it is important

to show exactly how the provided information
directly links with the proposed project
This sections should naturally progress from the
description of the current state of knowledge to
the gap that the proposed research will fill
Add a significance paragraph at the end of the
section
Specify in strong but realistic terms how the
proposed project will contribute to the field

rejected
Thus, these studies demonstrate the importance of

this area
These studies provide the important background for

this study in
The proposed project will build on this previous work
The proposed project will address limitations in the

previous work by
Pilot Work

rejected
Common
critiques
Preliminary or pilot work was lacking
Preliminary or pilot work was inadequately

described
Preliminary or pilot work lacked clear linkage to

the proposed study
Pilot Work

rejected
Valuable
suggestions
Summarize the principal investigators (or coinvestigators) previous work related to the
proposed project
Convince the reviewers that

The
principal investigator has the expertise and

experience to carry out the work
The work is feasible
Suitable groundwork has been done
Study participants are available
General Issues

rejected
Common
critiques
Layout and formatting

Information
presented in the wrong sections
Typographical
Small
errors
font sizes
General Issues

rejected
Valuable
Give
suggestions
time and attention to proofreading
Provide
spaces between paragraphs and between

sections
Make
the grant easy to read
Address
study limitations thoroughly and

realistically
Methods

rejected
Common
critiques
Underdeveloped methods
Valuable
Length:
suggestions
Devote at least 50% of the page allowance

to methods
Design and setting: What is the randomization
procedure? How will you blind participant allocation
to treatment groups? How will you select controls?
Will you enroll a representative sample? If not, will
there be any potential biases? How will you handle
them? Do the settings compare and extrapolate to
other settings?
Methods (sample)

rejected
Common
critiques
The study sample is potentially biased or

nonrepresentative
The inclusion criteria are poorly described or not
well-justified
The exclusion criteria are poorly described or not
well-justified
The exclusions would result in important bias in
the sample
Important exclusions were overlooked
Methods (participants)

rejected
Common
The availability of participants for the proposed

study is not assured
Valuable
critiques
suggestions
Provide data and assurance that adequate

numbers of patients will be available for the
study in the proposed setting, given the inclusion
and exclusion criteria
Provide data from pilot study
Provide data from previous related studies
Methods (procedures)

rejected
Common
critiques
Inadequate description of the proposed study

instruments or variables
Concerns about validity and reliability of the data

collection methods

rejected
Valuable
suggestions
Describe all study procedures and instruments in

detail
A tabular format can help provide information on

standardized and validated instruments,
including references and performance
characteristics such as sensitivity, specificity,
and reliability statistics

rejected
Valuable
suggestions
List and define all variables in tabular format
Outline the screening and enrollment procedures
Outline subsequent assessment and follow-up

procedures
Elucidate the interviewer training and

standardization or reliability assessments
Methods (outcomes)

rejected
Common
critiques
Concerns about the lack of or inadequate

blinding of outcome assessment
Inadequate description or specification of the

outcome measure
Concerns about validity or reliability of the

outcome
Methods (outcomes)

rejected
Valuable
suggestions
Fully define the outcome and describe the

performance characteristics of the measures
used for each outcome
Ideally, the outcomes should be assessed by
trained research staff who are not involved in the
intervention and who are blinded to the study
hypotheses and to the intervention status of the
participants
The study should be adequately powered to
evaluate all of the primary outcomes in the study
Methods (intervention)

rejected
Common critiques
Grant proposals poorly describe the intervention
Grant proposals present an unstandardized

intervention
Grant proposals present an intervention of

questionable potency
Grant proposals do not address contamination or cointervention in the control group
Methods (intervention)

rejected
Valuable suggestions
Offer enough detail so that to ensure the

intervention can be replicated
Describe the interventionists, their proficiency, and

any training required
Give details on how you will track adherence to

interventions
Report how you will monitor potential sources of

contamination or co-intervention in the control group
during the study
Methods (data analysis)

rejected
Common
critiques
Insufficient description of the analytic approach
Inadequate control for potential confounders
Insufficient description of the handling of missing

data
Not enough consideration of attrition

rejected
Early and ongoing involvement of a biostatistician
Fully describe data management and quality

assurance procedures such as double data
entry, error and validity checks, and training of
staff who will handle data management
procedures
Lay out proposed analyses here for each specific

aim or hypothesis

rejected
Use caution in specifying only one statistical

approach, since locking oneself into a particular
statistical method may raise concerns
Discuss alternate strategies considered and why you
decided on your approach
Carefully address how nonresponses and missing
data will be handled in analyses
Provide relevant sample size and power calculations
for primary outcomes applying best estimates for
effect sizes from pilot work or previous studies
Estimate realistic attrition rates and account for
these in the calculations

Scientif C Writing: A Step-By-Step Guide

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Scientif C Writing: A Step-By-Step Guide

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Scientif

The scientifc manuscript

What is the single most important point

The scientifc manuscript

Use short, declarative sentences rather than

Influence of aspirin on human megakaryocyte

Inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis as a

The scientifc manuscript

Use verbs instead of abstract nouns for

Treatment of polycystic ovary syndrome

How to treat polycystic ovary syndrome

The scientifc manuscript

Ocs o-t-c? (The Lancet)

Omit all waste words because indexing

The scientifc manuscript

If the study is of a particular species,

Check the targeted journal

The scientifc manuscript

The main words in the running title should

the targeted journal

The scientifc manuscript

To facilitate the indexing of published

Check the targeted journal

The scientifc manuscript

should not be longer than specified in the

should use the format specified in the Instructions

should be self-contained and able to stand alone

Omit all references to the literature and to tables or figures

Omit abbreviations and acronyms

The scientifc manuscript

As you write the abstract, keep the title of

When the abstract is complete, compare

The scientifc manuscript

State why you embarked on the project

State what your study was about objective

The scientifc manuscript

What places your research in the context

What supports the decision to perform

What are the implications of your study?

The scientifc manuscript

What is your argument?

The argument is a thread that runs through your

An argument has at least two parts: (1) a claim and

The scientifc manuscript

How to test if you have an argument

Statements to which you can coherently respond I

The scientifc manuscript

How to write an argument-driven article?

that publishable articles are

Do not write like a detective collecting data

The scientifc manuscript

Write the argument of the article

should be in your field

The scientifc manuscript

your article for argument

Do I state my argument early and clearly?

The scientifc manuscript

The writing-up should be organized

Avoid opening sentences that are vacuous

The scientifc manuscript

Avoid writing an introduction that is too

Most medical coomunications are difficult