Elsevier

Current Paediatrics

Volume 14, Issue 6, November 2004, Pages 513-518
Current Paediatrics

Writing a research paper

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cupe.2004.07.003Get rights and content

Summary

The aim of this article is to help those embarking on research to communicate effectively through writing, and to improve their chances of getting a paper published. The quality of a paper's research content is judged by originality, importance and scientific validity. Advice should be sought on a project's potential for high-quality research content before taking up the research. When readers have difficulties in understanding a paper, the problem more often lies with presentation and structure than with its scientific content. Readers expect information to be presented in a certain way and when this does not happen they may misinterpret what the writer intended.

Introduction

Science cannot advance unless research findings are effectively and widely communicated. The purpose of this article is to help those embarking on research to communicate effectively through writing, and to improve their chances of getting a paper published.

Decide who are the contributors to the proposed paper early on, as this may avoid conflict later. Although not every contributor need play a part in the writing, each is nonetheless accountable for the paper and must be able to justify the part they played in the research. Some journals request this information when the paper is submitted.

Select a lead writer who will be responsible for drafting most of the paper and for circulating it to the other contributors for their comments. Certain sections may have to be written by contributors with special knowledge, but the lead writer must retain overall control, collate suggestions and produce further drafts until all contributors are happy with the final product.

Try to complete as much of the first draft as you can in one sitting. Have with you a few copies of the journal you are submitting to, ensure that you follow the instructions to authors, and that tables and figures are styled appropriately. Begin by choosing a working title for the paper, and keep it as short and as simple as possible. Expressing a statement in the title is risky, especially in clinical research. Although ‘Rotavirus causes necrotizing entercolitis’ looks compelling, if the referee criticizes the scientific validity, the paper is damned through its title. Yet it may contain publishable research findings if interpreted differently. When the final draft of the paper has been completed, always reconsider the title and its appropriateness.

The important qualities of a scientific paper are its research content and its presentation and structure and these are the themes of this article.

Section snippets

Research content

The research content of a scientific paper is all the material of the research. It includes what you did; why you did it; how you did it; your results and their interpretation; and what you concluded. The quality of the research content is the most important factor influencing whether a paper is accepted or rejected and is assessed on the basis of originality, importance and scientific validity.

Before undertaking a project, experienced researchers always assess its potential for high quality

Presentation and structure

The purpose of writing is to communicate precisely to readers. A paper's presentation and structure determine whether it will be understood in the way that was intended; so the writer needs to understand how readers expect information to be presented. First, I will discuss the presentation of the main sections of the paper; then I will explain how writers can get their information across with the meaning they intended—writing with structure.

Most scientific papers are presented in sections:

Writing with structure

When readers have difficulties understanding a paper, the problem more often lies with the way the text is structured than with its scientific content. Nicely structured papers are often found in journals of physics and mathematics. We may not understand the science but we come away knowing what it is that we do not understand. Readers expect information to be presented in a certain way. When this does not happen they are confused because the paper is impenetrable. They may wrongly attribute

Conclusions

Writing with the reader in mind takes on a special meaning when we consider that the referee is usually the first external reader to critically study your paper. There may be little that can be done to retrieve a paper that is flawed on the basis of its research content, the problems should have come to light before starting the research. It is frustrating however when quality research content is misunderstood or is impenetrable to the referee. This is usually the fault of the writer and not

References (2)

  • J.R. Skelton et al.

    The function of the discussion section in academic medical writing

    Br Med J

    (2000)
  • G.D. Gopen et al.

    The science of scientific writing

    Am Scientist

    (1990)

Cited by (0)

View full text