write an article for publication on the topic

How to write a research article to submit for publication

Pharmacists and healthcare professionals who are undertaking research should have an understanding of how to produce a research article for publication, and be aware of the important considerations relating to submission to a peer-reviewed journal.

Viennaslide / Alamy Stock Photo

Undertaking and performing scientific, clinical and practice-based research is only the beginning of the scholarship of discovery [1] . For the full impact of any research to be achieved and to have an effect on the wider research and scientific community, it must be published in an outlet accessible to relevant professionals [2] .

Scientific research is often published in peer-reviewed journals. Peer review is defined as the unbiased, independent, critical assessment of scholarly or research manuscripts submitted to journals by experts or opinion leaders [3] . The process and requirements of reviewers has been covered recently [4] . On account of this rigorous process, peer-reviewed scientific journals are considered the primary source of new information that impacts and advances clinical decision-making and practice [5] , [6] .

The development of a research article can be helpful for the promotion of scientific thinking [7] , [8] and the advancement of effective writing skills, allowing the authors to participate in broader scientific discussions that lie beyond their scope of practice or discipline [2] .

This article aims to provide pharmacists and healthcare professionals who are undertaking research with an understanding of how to produce a research article for publication, as well as points to consider before submission to a peer-reviewed journal.

Importance of the research question

This article will not go into detail about forming suitable research questions, however, in principle, a good research question will be specific, novel and of relevance to the scientific community (e.g. pharmacy – pharmacists, pharmaceutical scientists, pharmacy technicians and related healthcare professionals). Hulley et al . suggest using the FINER criteria (see ‘Figure 1: FINER criteria for a good research question’) to aid the development of a good research question [9] .

Figure 1: FINER criteria for a good research question

Source: Hulley S, Cummings S, Browner W  et al . [9]

The FINER criteria highlight useful points that may generally increase the chances of developing a successful research project. A good research question should specify the population of interest, be of interest to the scientific community and potentially to the public, have clinical relevance and further current knowledge in the field.

Having a clear research question that is of interest to those working in the same field will help in the preparation of an article because it can be used as the central organising principle – all of the content included and discussed should focus on answering this question.

Preparing a first draft

Before writing the article, it is useful to highlight several journals that you could submit the final article to. It also helps to familiarise yourself with these journals’ styles, article structures and formatting instructions before starting to write. Many journals also have criteria that research articles should be able to satisfy. For example, all research article submissions to  Clinical Pharmacist must demonstrate innovative or novel results that are sustainable, reproducible and transferable [10] .

Having researched potential target journals, you should have a clear idea about your target audience, enabling you to pitch the level of the article appropriately [11] (see ‘Box 1: Top tips to prepare for writing’).

Box 1: Top tips to prepare for writing

• Know the focus of the paper – identify two or three important findings and make these the central theme of the article;
• Gather important data, perform any analyses and make rough data plots and tables beforehand. These can then be refined for inclusion or submitted as supplementary information if needed;
• Organise your results to flow in a logical sequence;
• Know the structure and requirements of your target journals (check websites and author guidelines, as well as published articles);
• Think about the style of the piece and look to pitch the article at the level of the intended audience;
• Clarity should be your guiding principle.

Structuring a research article

Most research articles follow a similar structure and format that includes an abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion, as well as a summary of the key points discussed in the article.

One approach is to start with the methods section, which can be derived from the protocol and any pilot phase. Many of the figures and tables can be constructed in advance, which will help with writing the results section. The questions addressed by the study can be used alongside the results to formulate the introduction, which can guide how the discussion is written [11] .

Clinical Pharmacist , like other peer-reviewed journals, has specific author guidelines and formatting instructions to help authors prepare their articles [10] , [12] , [13] . The following sections will discuss the required sections and important considerations for authors when writing.

Title, abstract and keywords

The title, abstract and keywords are essential to the successful communication of research. Most electronic search engines, databases (e.g. PubMed/MEDLINE) and journal websites extract words from them to determine whether your article will be displayed to interested readers [14] , [15] , [16] , [17] , enabling accurate dissemination and leading to future citations.

In addition, the title and abstract are usually freely available online. If an article is not published in an ‘open access’ format, (i.e. it is free and immediately available online and access is combined with the rights to use these articles fully in the digital environment) [18] , or if the reader does not have a subscription to the journal, they will have to decide on whether to pay to access the full article to continue reading. Therefore, it is imperative that they are informative and accurate.

The title should accurately reflect the research, identify the main issue and begin with the subject matter, while being both simple and enticing enough to attract the audience [19] . Authors should avoid using ‘a study of’, ‘investigations into’ and ‘observations on’ in titles. It is also worth remembering that abstracting and indexing services, such as MEDLINE, require accurate titles, because they extract keywords from them for cross-referencing [19] .

Many journals require the abstract to be structured in the same way as the main headings of the paper (e.g. introduction, methods, results, discussion and conclusion) and to be around 150–300 words in length [10] . In general, references should not be cited in the abstract.

Introduction

The introduction should provide the background and context to the study. Two or three paragraphs can be dedicated to the discussion of any previous work and identification of gaps in current knowledge. The rest of the introduction should then outline what this piece of work aims to address and why this is important, before stating the objectives of the study and the research question [20] .

The methods section should provide the reader with enough detail for them to be able to reproduce the study if desired [3] . The context and setting of the study should be described and the study design specified. The section should further describe the population (including the inclusion and exclusion criteria), sampling strategy and the interventions performed. The main study variables should be identified and the data collection procedures described [3] .

Authors should provide specific, technical and detailed information in this section. Several checklists and guidelines are available for the reporting of specific types of studies:

• CONSORT is used for developing and reporting a randomised controlled trial [21] ;
• The STARD checklist can help with designing a diagnostic accuracy study [22] ;
• The PRISMA checklist can be used when performing a metaâ€analyses or systematic review, but can also help with compiling an introduction [23] .

For the reporting of qualitative research studies, authors should explain which research tradition the study utilises and link the choice of methodological strategies with the research goals [24] .

For studies describing the development of new initiatives or clinical services, authors should describe the situation before the initiative began, the establishment of priorities, formulation of objectives and strategies, mobilisation of resources, and processes used in the methods section [10] .

The final portion of the methods section will include the statistical methods used to analyse the data [25] . The statistical methods employed should be described with enough detail to enable a knowledgeable reader with access to the original data to be able to judge its appropriateness for the study and verify the results [3] . For survey-based studies and information on sampling frame, size and statistical powers, see ‘When to use a survey in pharmacy practice research’ [26] .

Findings should be quantified and presented with appropriate indicators of measurement error or uncertainty (e.g. confidence intervals). Authors should avoid relying solely on statistical hypothesis testing, such as P values, because these fail to convey important information about effect size and precision of estimates [3] . Statistical terms, abbreviations and most symbols should be defined, and the statistical software package and versions used should be specified. Authors should also take care to distinguish prespecified from exploratory analyses, including subgroup analyses [3] .

The results section should be straightforward and factual and all of the results that relate to the research question should be provided, with detail including simple counts and percentages [27] . Data collection and recruitment should be commented on and the participants described. Secondary findings and the results of subgroup analyses can also be presented [27] .

Figures, schemes and tables

To present data and results of the research study, figures, schemes and tables can be used. They should include significant digits, error bars and levels of statistical significance.

Tables should be presented with a summary title, followed by caption, a sentence or two that describes the content and impact of the data included in the table. All captions should provide enough detail so that the table or figure can be interpreted and understood as stand-alone material, separate from the article.

Figures should also be presented with a summary title, a caption that describes the significant result or interpretation that can be made from the figure, the number of repetitions within the experiment, as well as what the data point actually represents. All figures and tables should be cited in the manuscript text [11] .

When compiling tables and figures, important statistics, such as the number of samples (n), the index of dispersion (standard deviation [SD], standard error of the mean [SEM]), and the index of central tendency (mean, median or mode), must be stated. The statistical analysis performed should also be included and specific statistical data should be indicated (e.g. P values) [11] .

Discussion and conclusions

The discussion section should state the main findings of the study. The main results should be compared with reference to previous research and current knowledge, and where this has been extended it should be fully described [2] , [11] , [25] . For clinical studies, relevant discussion of the implications the results may have on policy should be included [10] . It is important to include an analysis of the strengths and limitations of the study and offer perspectives for future work [2] . Excessive presentation of data and results without any discussion should be avoided and it is not necessary to cite a published work for each argument presented. Any conclusions should include the major findings, followed by a brief discussion of future perspectives and the application of this work to other disciplines [10] .

The list of references should be appropriate; important statements presented as facts should be referenced, as well as the methods and instruments used. Reference lists for research articles, however, unlike comprehensive reviews of a topic, do not necessarily have to be exhaustive. References to unpublished work, to documents in the grey literature (technical reports), or to any source that the reader will have difficulty finding or understanding should be avoided [27] . Most journals have reference limits and specific formatting requirements, so it is important to check the journal’s author guidelines [10] , [11] , [12] , [13] , [19] .

Authorship and acknowledgements

Determining contributors who qualify as authors and those who should be acknowledged can be difficult. Clinical Pharmacist follows guidance from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, which recommends that authorship be based on the following four criteria:

• Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
• Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
• Final approval of the version to be published; AND
• Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved [3] .

Therefore, only individuals who meet all four criteria should be identified as authors [3] . The contribution of individuals who do not meet all four criteria should instead be included in the acknowledgements.

In addition, a statement that recognises any funding sources for the work should be added to the acknowledgements. This statement should adhere to the guidelines provided by the funding institution [11] .

Supplementary and supporting information

A key principle of research publication is that others should be able to replicate and build upon an author’s published claims. Therefore, submitted manuscripts should contain the necessary detail about the study and analytical design, and the data must be available for editors and peer-reviewers to allow full evaluation to take place. This is now commonplace and is seen as best practice. Author guidelines now include sections related to misconduct and falsification of data [28] . By participating in self-archiving practices and providing full data sets, authors can play their part in transparency.

The Royal Pharmaceutical Society website hosts a database to help share data from research studies. The map of evidence collates existing evidence and ongoing initiatives that can ultimately inform policy and practice relating to pharmacy; enables the sharing and showcasing of good pharmacy practice and innovation; and aims to increase the knowledge exchange and learning in pharmacy and pharmaceutical sciences [29] .

Revising your article prior to submission

Once a draft research article has been prepared, it should be shared among all of the co-authors for review and comments. A full revision of the draft should then take place to correct grammar and check flow and logic before journal submission. All authors will have to agree on the authenticity of the data and presentation before formal submission can take place [3] (see ‘Box 2: Common mistakes and reasons why research articles are rejected for publication’).

Box 2: Common mistakes and reasons why research articles are rejected for publication

• Lack of novelty and importance of the research question;
• Poor study design;
• Methods not accurately and adequately described;
• Results poorly reported, along with little analysis of data;
• Lack of statistical analysis;
• Not acknowledging the study’s limitations;
• Providing unsupported conclusions or overstating the results of the study;
• Poor writing;
• Not following the journal’s style and formatting guidance;
• Submitting a manuscript that is incomplete or outside of the aims and scope.

Selecting a journal and submitting your manuscript

It is important to select a journal for submission wisely because this choice can determine the impact and dissemination of your work [13] . Impact factor (a measure of the frequency with which the average article in a journal has been cited in a particular year), the scope and readership of a title may also influence your choice.

Furthermore, approval and adequate disclosures must be obtained from all co-authors. A conflict of interests form is also completed as part of the submissions process (normally completed by the lead author on behalf of all authors).

Many journals now request that a cover letter is also submitted to the editor, putting the study in context and explaining why the research is of importance to their audience and why it should be considered for publication in their journal.

Once this is all completed, the article can be formally submitted (usually via email or an online submission system). Figure 2 provides a sample process for a manuscript once submitted to a journal for consideration for publication.

Figure 2: Sample process for a submitted manuscript

Source: The Pharmaceutical Journal

All journals follow a similar process for article submissions, whether they use a formal online submissions system or simply email.  Clinical Pharmacist uses a process similar to this and it is useful for authors to be aware of how their submission may progress once submitted to a journal for publication.

Useful Links

• The EQUATOR Network
• Research4Life – Authorship skills modules
• Pharmacy Research UK

Reading this article counts towards your CPD

You can use the following forms to record your learning and action points from this article from Pharmaceutical Journal Publications.

Your CPD module results are stored against your account here at The Pharmaceutical Journal . You must be registered and logged into the site to do this. To review your module results, go to the ‘My Account’ tab and then ‘My CPD’.

Any training, learning or development activities that you undertake for CPD can also be recorded as evidence as part of your RPS Faculty practice-based portfolio when preparing for Faculty membership. To start your RPS Faculty journey today, access the portfolio and tools at www.rpharms.com/Faculty

If your learning was planned in advance, please click:

If your learning was spontaneous, please click:

[1] Boyer E. Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities for the professoriate . 1990. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

[2] Hoogenboom BJ & Manske RC. How to write a scientific article. Int J Sports Phys Ther . 2012;7(5):512–517. PMCID: PMC3474301

[3] International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. 2014. Available at: http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf (accessed November 2016).

[4] Dowdall M. How to be an effective peer reviewer. Clinical Pharmacist 2015;7(10). doi: 10.1211/CP.2015.20200006

[5] Nahata MC. Tips for writing and publishing an article. Ann Pharmaco . 2008;42:273–277. doi: 10.1345/aph.1K616

[6] Dixon N. Writing for publication: A guide for new authors. Int J Qual Health Care . 2001;13:417–421. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/13.5.417

[7] Keys CW. Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: Connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science. Sci Educ . 1999;83:115–130.

[8] Gopen G & Swan J. The science of scientific writing. Am Sci . 1990;78:550–558. Available at: http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/the-science-of-scientific-writing (accessed November 2016)

[9] Hulley S, Cummings S, Browner W et al . Designing clinical research. 3rd ed. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2007.

[10] The Pharmaceutical Journal and Clinical  Pharmacist. Author Guidance (2015). Available at: http://www.pharmaceutical-journal.com/for-authors-and-referees/article-types/#Practice_reports (accessed November 2016)

[11] Fisher JP, Jansen JA, Johnson PC et al . Guidelines for writing a research article for publication. Mary Ann Liebert Inc. Available at: https://www.liebertpub.com/media/pdf/English-Research-Article-Writing-Guide.pdf (accessed November 2016)

[12] Nature. Author Resources: How to write a paper. Available at: http://www.nature.com/authors/author_resources/how_write.html (accessed November 2016)

[13] Wiley Online Library. Resources for authors and reviewers: preparing your article. Available at: http://olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-828006.html (accessed November 2016)

[14] SAGE Publications. Help readers find your article. Available at: http://www.uk.sagepub.com/journalgateway/findArticle.htm (accessed November 2016)

[15] Bem DJ. Writing the empirical journal article. In: MP Zanna & JM Darley (Eds.), The complete academic: a practical guide for the beginning social scientist (pp. 171–201). New York: Random House; 1987.

[16] Fathalla M & Fathalla M. A practical guide for health researchers. Available at: http://www.emro.who.int/dsaf/dsa237.pdf (accessed November 2016)

[17] Coghill A & Garson L (Eds.). Scientific Papers. In: A Coghill & L Garson (Eds.), The ACS Style Guide, 3 rd Edition (pp. 20–21). New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.

[18] The Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Institute. Available at: http://sparcopen.org/open-access/ (accessed November 2016).

[19] Elsevier. Understanding the publishing process: how to publish in scholarly journals. Available at: https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/91173/Brochure_UPP_April2015.pdf (accessed November 2016).

[20] SciDevNet. How do I write a scientific paper? 2008. Available at: http://www.scidev.net/global/publishing/practical-guide/how-do-i-write-a-scientific-paper-.html (accessed November 2016)

[21] Moher D, Schultz KR & Altman DG. CONSORT GROUP (Consolidatied Standards of Reporting Trials). The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel‐group randomized controlled trials. Ann Intern Med . 2001;134:657–662. PMID: 11304106

[22] Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE et al . Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD Initiative. Ann Int Med 2003;138:40–44. PMID: 12513043

[23] Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J et al . The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6(6):e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed1000097

[24] Devers KJ & Frankel RM. Getting qualitative research published. Educ Health 2001;14:109–117. doi: 10.1080/13576280010021888

[25] Van Way CW. Writing a scientific paper. Nutr Clin Pract 2007;22:636–640. PMID: 18042951

[26] Kishore V. When to use a survey in pharmacy practice research. The Pharmaceutical Journal 296(7886). doi: 10.1211/PJ.2016.20200700

[27] Perneger PV & Hudelson PM. Writing a research article: advice to beginners . Int J Qual Health Care 2004;16(3):191–192. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzh053

[28] World Association of Medical Editors. Professionalism Code of Conduct. 2016. Available at: http://www.wame.org/News/Details/16 (accessed November 2016)

[29] Royal Pharmaceutical Society. Map of Evidence. Available at: http://www.rpharms.com/support/map-of-evidence.asp (accessed November 2016)

You might also be interested in…

Working to improve our digital archive

The Pharmaceutical Journal is moving forward into a digital future

The launch of our new digital platform is just the beginning of our plans for the future of PJ

Oxford University Press's Academic Insights for the Thinking World

How to write a journal article

Oxford Academic journals

Find out more about publishing partnerships with Oxford Academic.

• By Rose Wolfe-Emery
• July 21 st 2023

Academics normally learn how to write while on the job,  sugge s ts  Michael Hochberg. This usually starts with “the dissertation and interactions with their supervisor. Skills are honed and new ones acquired with each successive manuscript.” Writing continues to improve throughout a career, but that thought might bring little solace if you are staring at a blank document and wondering where to start. 

In this blog post, we share tips from editors and outline some ideas to bear in mind when drafting a journal article. Whether you are writing a journal article to share your research, contribute to your field, or progress your career, a well-written and structured article will increase the likelihood of acceptance and of your article making an impact after publication.

Four tips for writing well

Stuart West and Lindsay Turnbull  suggest  four general principles to bear in mind when writing journal articles:

• Keep it simple:  “Simple, clear writing is fundamental to this task. Instead of trying to sound […] clever, you should be clear and concise.”
• Assume nothing:  “When writing a paper, it’s best to assume that your reader is [subject] literate, but has very little expert knowledge. Your paper is more likely to fail because you assumed too much, than because you dumbed it down too much.”
• Keep to essentials:  “If you focus on the main message, and remove all distractions, then the reader will come away with the message that you want them to have.”
• Tell your story : “Good […] writing tells a story. It tells the reader why the topic you have chosen is important, what you found out, and why that matters. For the story to flow smoothly, the different parts need to link clearly to each other. In creative writing this is called ‘narrative flow’.”

“A paper is well-written if a reader who is not involved in the work can understand every single sentence in the paper,”  argues  Nancy Dixon. But understanding is the bare minimum that you should aim for—ideally, you want to  engage  your audience, so they keep reading. 

As  West and Turnbull say , frankly: “Your potential reader is someone time-limited, stressed, and easily bored. They have a million other things to do and will take any excuse to give up on reading your paper.”

A complete guide to preparing a journal article for submission

Consider your research topic.

Before you begin to draft your article, consider the following questions:

• What key message(s) do you want to convey?
• Can you identify a significant advance that will arise from your article?
• How could your argument, results, or findings change the way that people think or advance understanding in the field?

As  Nancy Dixon  says: “[A journal] editor wants to publish papers that interest and excite the journal’s readers, that are important to advancing knowledge in the field and that spark new ideas for work in the field.”

Think about the journal that you want to submit to

Research the journals in your field and create a shortlist of “target” journals  before  writing your article, so that you can adapt your writing to the journal’s audience and style. Journals sometimes have an official style guide but reading published articles can also help you to familiarise yourself with the format and tone of articles in your target journals. Journals often publish articles of varying lengths and structures, so consider what article type would best suit your argument or results. 

Check your target journals’ editorial policies and ethical requirements. As a minimum, all reputable journals require submissions to be original and previously unpublished. The  ThinkCheckSubmit  checklist can help you to assess whether a journal is suitable for your research.

Now that you’ve decided on your research topic and chosen the journal you plan on submitting to, what do you need to consider when drafting each section of your article?

Create an outline

Firstly, it’s worth creating an outline for your journal article, broken down by section. Seth J. Schwartz  explains  this as follows:

Writing an outline is like creating a map before you set out on a road trip. You know which roads to take, and where to turn or get off the highway. You can even decide on places to stop during your trip. When you create a map like this, the trip is planned and you don’t have to worry whether you are going in the correct direction. It has already been mapped out for you.

The typical structure of a journal article

• Make it concise, accurate, and catchy
• Avoid including abbreviations or formulae
• Choose 5-7 keywords that you’d like your journal article to appear in the search results for
• Summarize the findings of your journal article in a succinct, “punchy”, and relevant way
• Keep it brief (200 words for the letter, and 250 words for the main journal)
• Do not include references

Introduction

• Introduce your argument or outline the problem
• Describe your approach
• Identify existing solutions and limitations, or provide the existing context for your discussion
• Define abbreviations

Methods 

For STEM and some social sciences articles

• Describe how the work was done and include plenty of detail to allow for reproduction
• Identify equipment and software programs

Results 

For STEM and some social science articles

• Decide on the data to present and how to present it (clearly and concisely)
• Summarise the key results of the article
• Do not repeat results or introduce new discussion points

 Acknowledgements

• Include funding, contributors who are not listed as authors, facilities and equipment, referees (if they’ve been helpful; even though anonymous)
• Do not include non-research contributors (parents, friends, or pets!)
• Cite articles that have been influential in your research—these should be well-balanced and relevant
• Follow your chosen journal’s reference style, such as Harvard or Chicago
• List all citations in the text alphabetically at end of the article

Sharing data

Many journals now encourage authors to make all data on which the conclusions of their article rely available to readers. This data can be presented in the main manuscript, in additional supporting files, or placed in a public repository.

Journals also tend to support the Force 11 Data Citation Principles that require all publicly available datasets be fully referenced in the reference list with an accession number or unique identifier such as a digital object identifier (DOI).

Permissions

Permission to reproduce copyright material, for online publication without a time limit, must also be cleared and, if necessary, paid for by the author. Evidence in writing that such permissions have been secured from the rights-holder are usually required to be made available to the editors.

Learning from experience

Publishing a journal article is very competitive, so don’t lose hope if your article isn’t accepted to your first-choice journal the first-time round. If your article makes it to the peer-review stage, be sure to take note of what the reviewers have said, as their comments can be very helpful. As well as continuing to write, there are other things you can do to improve your writing skills, including peer review and editing.

Christopher, Marek, and Zebel note  that “there is no secret formula for success”, arguing that: 

The lack of a specific recipe for acceptances reflects, in part, the variety of factors that may influence publication decisions, such as the perceived novelty of the manuscript topic, how the manuscript topic relates to other manuscripts submitted at a similar time, and the targeted journal. Thus, beyond actively pursuing options for any one particular manuscript, begin or continue work on others. In fact, one approach to boosting writing productivity is to have a variety of ongoing projects at different stages of completion. After all, considering that “100 percent of the shots you do not take will not go in,” you can increase your chances of publication by taking multiple shots.

Rose Wolfe-Emery , Marketing Executive, Oxford University Press

• Editor's Picks
• Publishing 101
• Series & Columns

Our Privacy Policy sets out how Oxford University Press handles your personal information, and your rights to object to your personal information being used for marketing to you or being processed as part of our business activities.

We will only use your personal information to register you for OUPblog articles.

Or subscribe to articles in the subject area by email or RSS

Related posts:

Recent Comments

There are currently no comments.

How to Write and Publish a Research Paper for a Peer-Reviewed Journal

• Open access
• Published: 30 April 2020
• Volume 36 , pages 909–913, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Clara Busse   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0178-1000 1 &
• Ella August   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5151-1036 1 , 2  

276k Accesses

15 Citations

717 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Communicating research findings is an essential step in the research process. Often, peer-reviewed journals are the forum for such communication, yet many researchers are never taught how to write a publishable scientific paper. In this article, we explain the basic structure of a scientific paper and describe the information that should be included in each section. We also identify common pitfalls for each section and recommend strategies to avoid them. Further, we give advice about target journal selection and authorship. In the online resource 1 , we provide an example of a high-quality scientific paper, with annotations identifying the elements we describe in this article.

Similar content being viewed by others

How to Choose the Right Journal

The Point Is…to Publish?

Writing and publishing a scientific paper

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Writing a scientific paper is an important component of the research process, yet researchers often receive little formal training in scientific writing. This is especially true in low-resource settings. In this article, we explain why choosing a target journal is important, give advice about authorship, provide a basic structure for writing each section of a scientific paper, and describe common pitfalls and recommendations for each section. In the online resource 1 , we also include an annotated journal article that identifies the key elements and writing approaches that we detail here. Before you begin your research, make sure you have ethical clearance from all relevant ethical review boards.

Select a Target Journal Early in the Writing Process

We recommend that you select a “target journal” early in the writing process; a “target journal” is the journal to which you plan to submit your paper. Each journal has a set of core readers and you should tailor your writing to this readership. For example, if you plan to submit a manuscript about vaping during pregnancy to a pregnancy-focused journal, you will need to explain what vaping is because readers of this journal may not have a background in this topic. However, if you were to submit that same article to a tobacco journal, you would not need to provide as much background information about vaping.

Information about a journal’s core readership can be found on its website, usually in a section called “About this journal” or something similar. For example, the Journal of Cancer Education presents such information on the “Aims and Scope” page of its website, which can be found here: https://www.springer.com/journal/13187/aims-and-scope .

Peer reviewer guidelines from your target journal are an additional resource that can help you tailor your writing to the journal and provide additional advice about crafting an effective article [ 1 ]. These are not always available, but it is worth a quick web search to find out.

Identify Author Roles Early in the Process

Early in the writing process, identify authors, determine the order of authors, and discuss the responsibilities of each author. Standard author responsibilities have been identified by The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) [ 2 ]. To set clear expectations about each team member’s responsibilities and prevent errors in communication, we also suggest outlining more detailed roles, such as who will draft each section of the manuscript, write the abstract, submit the paper electronically, serve as corresponding author, and write the cover letter. It is best to formalize this agreement in writing after discussing it, circulating the document to the author team for approval. We suggest creating a title page on which all authors are listed in the agreed-upon order. It may be necessary to adjust authorship roles and order during the development of the paper. If a new author order is agreed upon, be sure to update the title page in the manuscript draft.

In the case where multiple papers will result from a single study, authors should discuss who will author each paper. Additionally, authors should agree on a deadline for each paper and the lead author should take responsibility for producing an initial draft by this deadline.

Structure of the Introduction Section

The introduction section should be approximately three to five paragraphs in length. Look at examples from your target journal to decide the appropriate length. This section should include the elements shown in Fig.  1 . Begin with a general context, narrowing to the specific focus of the paper. Include five main elements: why your research is important, what is already known about the topic, the “gap” or what is not yet known about the topic, why it is important to learn the new information that your research adds, and the specific research aim(s) that your paper addresses. Your research aim should address the gap you identified. Be sure to add enough background information to enable readers to understand your study. Table 1 provides common introduction section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

The main elements of the introduction section of an original research article. Often, the elements overlap

Methods Section

The purpose of the methods section is twofold: to explain how the study was done in enough detail to enable its replication and to provide enough contextual detail to enable readers to understand and interpret the results. In general, the essential elements of a methods section are the following: a description of the setting and participants, the study design and timing, the recruitment and sampling, the data collection process, the dataset, the dependent and independent variables, the covariates, the analytic approach for each research objective, and the ethical approval. The hallmark of an exemplary methods section is the justification of why each method was used. Table 2 provides common methods section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

Results Section

The focus of the results section should be associations, or lack thereof, rather than statistical tests. Two considerations should guide your writing here. First, the results should present answers to each part of the research aim. Second, return to the methods section to ensure that the analysis and variables for each result have been explained.

Begin the results section by describing the number of participants in the final sample and details such as the number who were approached to participate, the proportion who were eligible and who enrolled, and the number of participants who dropped out. The next part of the results should describe the participant characteristics. After that, you may organize your results by the aim or by putting the most exciting results first. Do not forget to report your non-significant associations. These are still findings.

Tables and figures capture the reader’s attention and efficiently communicate your main findings [ 3 ]. Each table and figure should have a clear message and should complement, rather than repeat, the text. Tables and figures should communicate all salient details necessary for a reader to understand the findings without consulting the text. Include information on comparisons and tests, as well as information about the sample and timing of the study in the title, legend, or in a footnote. Note that figures are often more visually interesting than tables, so if it is feasible to make a figure, make a figure. To avoid confusing the reader, either avoid abbreviations in tables and figures, or define them in a footnote. Note that there should not be citations in the results section and you should not interpret results here. Table 3 provides common results section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

Discussion Section

Opposite the introduction section, the discussion should take the form of a right-side-up triangle beginning with interpretation of your results and moving to general implications (Fig.  2 ). This section typically begins with a restatement of the main findings, which can usually be accomplished with a few carefully-crafted sentences.

Major elements of the discussion section of an original research article. Often, the elements overlap

Next, interpret the meaning or explain the significance of your results, lifting the reader’s gaze from the study’s specific findings to more general applications. Then, compare these study findings with other research. Are these findings in agreement or disagreement with those from other studies? Does this study impart additional nuance to well-accepted theories? Situate your findings within the broader context of scientific literature, then explain the pathways or mechanisms that might give rise to, or explain, the results.

Journals vary in their approach to strengths and limitations sections: some are embedded paragraphs within the discussion section, while some mandate separate section headings. Keep in mind that every study has strengths and limitations. Candidly reporting yours helps readers to correctly interpret your research findings.

The next element of the discussion is a summary of the potential impacts and applications of the research. Should these results be used to optimally design an intervention? Does the work have implications for clinical protocols or public policy? These considerations will help the reader to further grasp the possible impacts of the presented work.

Finally, the discussion should conclude with specific suggestions for future work. Here, you have an opportunity to illuminate specific gaps in the literature that compel further study. Avoid the phrase “future research is necessary” because the recommendation is too general to be helpful to readers. Instead, provide substantive and specific recommendations for future studies. Table 4 provides common discussion section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

Follow the Journal’s Author Guidelines

After you select a target journal, identify the journal’s author guidelines to guide the formatting of your manuscript and references. Author guidelines will often (but not always) include instructions for titles, cover letters, and other components of a manuscript submission. Read the guidelines carefully. If you do not follow the guidelines, your article will be sent back to you.

Finally, do not submit your paper to more than one journal at a time. Even if this is not explicitly stated in the author guidelines of your target journal, it is considered inappropriate and unprofessional.

Your title should invite readers to continue reading beyond the first page [ 4 , 5 ]. It should be informative and interesting. Consider describing the independent and dependent variables, the population and setting, the study design, the timing, and even the main result in your title. Because the focus of the paper can change as you write and revise, we recommend you wait until you have finished writing your paper before composing the title.

Be sure that the title is useful for potential readers searching for your topic. The keywords you select should complement those in your title to maximize the likelihood that a researcher will find your paper through a database search. Avoid using abbreviations in your title unless they are very well known, such as SNP, because it is more likely that someone will use a complete word rather than an abbreviation as a search term to help readers find your paper.

After you have written a complete draft, use the checklist (Fig. 3 ) below to guide your revisions and editing. Additional resources are available on writing the abstract and citing references [ 5 ]. When you feel that your work is ready, ask a trusted colleague or two to read the work and provide informal feedback. The box below provides a checklist that summarizes the key points offered in this article.

Checklist for manuscript quality

Data Availability

Michalek AM (2014) Down the rabbit hole…advice to reviewers. J Cancer Educ 29:4–5

Article   Google Scholar  

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Defining the role of authors and contributors: who is an author? http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authosrs-and-contributors.html . Accessed 15 January, 2020

Vetto JT (2014) Short and sweet: a short course on concise medical writing. J Cancer Educ 29(1):194–195

Brett M, Kording K (2017) Ten simple rules for structuring papers. PLoS ComputBiol. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005619

Lang TA (2017) Writing a better research article. J Public Health Emerg. https://doi.org/10.21037/jphe.2017.11.06

Download references

Acknowledgments

Ella August is grateful to the Sustainable Sciences Institute for mentoring her in training researchers on writing and publishing their research.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Maternal and Child Health, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, 135 Dauer Dr, 27599, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

Clara Busse & Ella August

Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan School of Public Health, 1415 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-2029, USA

Ella August

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ella August .

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interests.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

(PDF 362 kb)

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Busse, C., August, E. How to Write and Publish a Research Paper for a Peer-Reviewed Journal. J Canc Educ 36 , 909–913 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-020-01751-z

Download citation

Published : 30 April 2020

Issue Date : October 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-020-01751-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Manuscripts
• Scientific writing
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Academic Skills
• Graduate research services

Writing a paper for publication

Finding and positioning your argument.

This resource provides a brief introduction to this topic, which should take you 15-20 minutes to complete. It includes activities to help you apply tips to your own context and reflect on your learning. Check out the further resources and references provided for further information on the topic.

Writing a paper for publication allows you to communicate a central argument of your research problem. This video introduces some key considerations for writing a paper for publication.

The following activity will take you through tips for choosing a journal and establishing your contribution. You can fill in your answers as you go and download them at the end.

*If content below does not display, please refresh your browser

You can also try the following tips:

• Pitch your idea aloud to a real or imagined audience in 1-3 minutes to see if your argument is clear to yourself and others.
• Imagine your paper being cited in a sentence or two in another author's literature review on your topic (Thomson & Kamler, 2013). What point or contribution would you like to be remembered for?
• Use your abstract to work on shaping your argument. Refer to the ‘ Title and abstract ’ section for more information.

The Library’s journal selection guide

Writing for publication – finding an angle and an argument

Use the side menu to go the next section: Planning your paper , where we explore article types and an article mapping tool.

Planning your paper

Once you’ve formed your argument and related it to your target journal, it’s time to create a plan for your paper. This will help you a lot in the writing stage.

Article types

In your planning, consider what type of paper you’re going to write based on the type of material you have on your topic. Deciding the type of article you write will help you to determine its structure. Different journals may accept different article types, but there are generally four main publication focuses:

• Empirical paper Usually follows an IMRAD structure (Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion) or some variation of this
• Review paper Includes literature reviews, systematic reviews and other reviews
• 'Think piece' / theoretical paper Focuses on discussing an idea conceptually
• Modelling paper Proposes and justifies a new model for solving a problem based on research

These types of paper differ in focus rather than exclusive content. Some papers strike a balance between these focuses and are therefore harder to categorise. You just need to be aware of these choices and which paper type your piece is leaning toward.

Examples of the four article types and their structures are given in the 'Title and abstract' section.

Mapping your writing

Watch this video to find out how to plan your paper using an article mapping template, then download the template below.

Download the  article mapping template (Word Doc)

Use the side menu to go the next section: Title and abstract , where we look at writing an effective article title and abstract.

Title and abstract

Your article will need an effective title and abstract to be retrieved easily through search programs and to appeal to your readers. These are usually the most read parts of your paper.

Watch the following video for practical tips and examples to help you write your title and abstract.

The following sample abstracts illustrate how different types of academic paper could be structured. Complete this activity to discover a structure you can use in your own work. Choose the paper type you're interested in from the accordions below then follow the instructions to complete the activity.

*If content does not display below, refresh your browser.

(adapted from Richardson et al., 2016)

(adapted from Shadiev & Sintawati, 2020)

(adapted from Raamsdonk, 2018)

(adapted from Osberg & Biesta, 2010)

Use the side menu to go the next section: Writing your paper , where we look at effective writing strategies for publication.

Writing your paper

The writing stage is exciting! It’s where you can see your ideas coming to life. However, getting started and staying focused can be challenging. The following tips will help you to avoid procrastination and stay on track.

• Set up systems to help you keep going, e.g. ‘write 300-1000 words a day five days a week’ or ‘complete at least 300 words before I do any reading or check emails’. Having a system, however modest, can sustain writing over time.
• Try generative writing techniques, which involve writing continuously without correction or judgement for a short interval or writing to prompts, such as 'My key findings are...' , to get your ideas flowing.
• Try to avoid perfectionism – initially, getting the writing done is more important than getting it perfect. You might find that the act of writing offloads and clarifies your ideas and helps you structure them much better than thinking alone.
• Consider approaching your colleagues or peers to set up a writing group that meets to work quietly for a set length of time, e.g. 25 minutes, then breaks for 5 minutes for a social discussion between writing blocks.
• Use read-to-write strategies: Look through some recent publications in your target journal to observe how they are put together – notice the typical structures, writing moves and terminology used. This awareness can help you to attune your paper to the journal’s expectations or deviate from them in an informed, justified way. Understanding the conventional way of writing in the journal also helps you to balance ‘convention and novelty’ (Patriotta, 2017) in joining and adding to the conversation.
• Signpost your ideas throughout to help your readers navigate your writing. You can use the Academic Phrasebank to choose signposting expressions for different sections of your paper.
• You may need to refine your paper multiple times, with a different focus each time: content, organisation and structure, writing style and language expression.
• Writing can be a fun and social activity. Try to get support and feedback from trusted peers, supervisors, mentors or advisers during the writing process as this can boost your confidence and give you the reader’s perspective.
• Connecting to other graduate researchers can also help you to shape and test your ideas through engaging in scholarly dialogue. When published, your ideas will be in the public domain and become public good.
• As you write, imagine yourself as an authoritative writer speaking to your journal’s audience (Thomson & Kamler, 2013). This visualisation can help enhance your sense of authority and nurture a writer identity.
• Find a writing mate or join a writing group to review one another’s papers. This will not only give you feedback on your paper but also the experience of being a reader-reviewer of others’ work. This informal peer review experience can help prepare you for the more formal peer review process of a journal.
• If you’re co-authoring your paper, this can be a great opportunity to learn from others and become a collaborative writer. Setting clear parameters and establishing supportive relationships are key in co-authorship.

When asking for feedback, you can guide the person giving you feedback using these suggestions from Thomson and Kamler (2013, p. 173) by asking them to:

• Tell you their summary of your argument
• Tell you what point they think the article is trying to make
• Name two strengths of the paper
• Identify the most important improvement you should make to achieve the biggest 'gains' excluding spelling and grammar points.

Now, look at the current draft of your paper and answer the following questions to help you assess your own progress. You can download the list of questions and your answers on the last page of the activity.

How to write and structure a journal article

11 steps to structuring a science paper editors will take seriously

Looping – a free writing strategy for generating ideas

Writing for publication – some beginning strategies …

The perfect sentence vortex and how to escape it

(Scroll down to the bottom of the listing to access the blog entry titled 'The prefect sentence vortex and how to escape it')

Academic Phrasebank

Editing your writing

Learning to be a co-author

Use the side menu to go the next section: Responding to peer reviews , where we explore strategies for the peer review process.

Responding to peer reviews

Peer review is a key part of the publication process. Blind reviewing means that you will be treated as an equal member in the field and that your paper will be judged based on its merits only.

Taking charge of your response

Most good journals use a peer review process to make sure what they publish has gone through high levels of scrutiny from academics in a field of research. To your readers, this means that your paper has met the publication standards of the journal.

After your paper has been read by an editor and deemed suitable for the journal, it will be sent to several (usually two) academics in your field to be reviewed.

The peer review process can take anywhere from a few months to a year, sometimes longer, depending on the journal. When you receive your reviewers’ reports, you will need to respond to them demonstrating that you have taken their suggestions onboard or explaining why you’ve decided not to follow some suggestions.

Reviewers may differ widely in their views and ways of giving feedback. Some are encouraging, while others can be directly critical. However, most reviewers invest their time and effort in giving feedback that they think will be useful to writers.

When responding to reviewers' reports:

• Try to take criticisms, even those you find challenging, as opportunities to develop as a writer and researcher. If you think some feedback is unfair or unhelpful, give reasonable explanations of what you have done instead of what was suggested.
• Don’t get carried away by the commentary. Focus instead on picking out suggested changes, or actionable items. You might find it useful to create a simple table listing the reviewers’ suggested changes in one column and your responses to these in another, indicating the evidence of each change and its page number.

Responding to peer reviews is an opportunity for you to argue your case further. When you’re responding to critique, it’s easy to ask the reactive question ‘How can I defend my position?’ but a more useful question might be: ‘How can I strengthen my argument?’ You can then incorporate strengthening elements in your paper to make the most of the peer review process.

To be able to do all this, you may need support from your peers, supervisors or other people you trust to give you advice. It’s a good idea to talk to them early on to help you understand and respond to peer reviews effectively.

Deciding on big revisions

To decide how best to respond to suggestions for big changes, think about:

• Scope: Is the suggested change within the scope I aim for?
• Quality: Will making the suggested change significantly improve the quality of my paper?
• Effort: What is an easier alternative to making the change suggested? E.g., can I add a few sentences to justify the methodology rather than changing it completely?

Writing a paper for publication is a challenging but rewarding process, from finding and positioning your argument, planning and writing your paper through to responding to peer reviews. Reflecting on your learning along the way will help you develop as a researcher, writer and contributing member of your scholarly community.

For more information and support in your writing, Explore: Academic Skills Graduate Research services

Osberg, D., & Biesta, G. (2010). The end/s of education: Complexity and the conundrum of the inclusive educational curriculum. International Journal of Inclusive Education , 14 (6), 593–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110802530684

Patriotta, G. (2017). Crafting papers for publication: Novelty and convention in academic writing. Journal of Management Studies , 54 (5), 747–759. https://doi.org/doi: 10.1111/joms.12280

Raamsdonk, J. (2018). Mechanisms underlying longevity: A genetic switch model of aging. Experimental Gerontology , 107 , 136–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exger.2017.08.005

Richardson, J., Gauert, A., Briones Montecinos, L., Fanlo, L., Alhashem, Z. M., Assar, R., Marti, E., Kabla, A., Härtel, S., & Linker, C. (2016). Leader cells define directionality of trunk, but not cranial, neural crest cell migration. Cell Rep , 15 (9), 2076–2088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2016.04.067

Shadiev, R., & Sintawati, W. (2020). A review of research on intercultural learning supported by technology. Educational Research Review , 31 , 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100338

Steinbok, P. (1995). Ethical considerations relating to writing a medical scientific paper for publication. Child’s Nervous System , 11 (6), 323–328.

Stommel, W., & de Rijk, L. (2021). Ethical approval: None sought. How discourse analysts report ethical issues around publicly available online data. Research Ethics , 17 (3), 275–297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1747016120988767

Thomson, P. (2018). Writing for publication—Some beginning strategies.  Patter . https://patthomson.net/2018/06/18/writing-for-publication-some-generative-strategies%e2%80%8b-to-begin/

Thomson, P., & Kamler, B. (2013). Writing for peer reviewed journals: Strategies for getting published . Routledge.

How to write and structure a journal article

Sharing your research data  can be hugely  beneficial to your career , as well as to the scholarly community and wider society. But before you do so, there are some important ethical considerations to remember.

What are the rules and guidance you should follow, when you begin to think about how to write and structure a journal article? Ruth First Prize winner Steven Rogers, PhD said the first thing is to be passionate about what you write.

Steven Nabieu Rogers, Ruth First Prize winner.

Let’s go through some of the best advice that will help you pinpoint the features of a journal article, and how to structure it into a compelling research paper.

Planning for your article

When planning to write your article, make sure it has a central message that you want to get across. This could be a novel aspect of methodology that you have in your PhD study, a new theory, or an interesting modification you have made to theory or a novel set of findings.

2018 NARST Award winner Marissa Rollnick advised that you should decide what this central focus is, then create a paper outline bearing in mind the need to:

Isolate a manageable size

Create a coherent story/argument

Make the argument self-standing

Target the journal readership

Change the writing conventions from that used in your thesis

Get familiar with the journal you want to submit to

It is a good idea to choose your target journal before you start to write your paper. Then you can tailor your writing to the journal’s requirements and readership, to increase your chances of acceptance.

When selecting your journal think about audience, purposes, what to write about and why. Decide the kind of article to write. Is it a report, position paper, critique or review? What makes your argument or research interesting? How might the paper add value to the field?

If you need more guidance on how to choose a journal,  here is our guide to narrow your focus.

Once you’ve chosen your target journal, take the time to read a selection of articles already published – particularly focus on those that are relevant to your own research.

This can help you get an understanding of what the editors may be looking for, then you can guide your writing efforts.

The  Think. Check. Submit.  initiative provides tools to help you evaluate whether the journal you’re planning to send your work to is trustworthy.

The journal’s  aims and scope  is also an important resource to refer back to as you write your paper – use it to make sure your article aligns with what the journal is trying to accomplish.

Keep your message focused

The next thing you need to consider when writing your article is your target audience. Are you writing for a more general audience or is your audience experts in the same field as you? The journal you have chosen will give you more information on the type of audience that will read your work.

When you know your audience, focus on your main message to keep the attention of your readers. A lack of focus is a common problem and can get in the way of effective communication.

Stick to the point. The strongest journal articles usually have one point to make. They make that point powerfully, back it up with evidence, and position it within the field.

How to format and structure a journal article

The format and structure of a journal article is just as important as the content itself, it helps to clearly guide the reader through.

How do I format a journal article?

Individual journals will have their own specific formatting requirements, which you can find in the  instructions for authors.

You can save time on formatting by downloading a template from our  library of templates  to apply to your article text. These templates are accepted by many of our journals. Also, a large number of our journals now offer  format-free submission,  which allows you to submit your paper without formatting your manuscript to meet that journal’s specific requirements.

General structure for writing an academic journal article

The title of your article is one of the first indicators readers will get of your research and concepts. It should be concise, accurate, and informative. You should include your most relevant keywords in your title, but avoid including abbreviations and formulae.

Keywords are an essential part of producing a journal article. When writing a journal article you must select keywords that you would like your article to rank for.

Keywords help potential readers to discover your article when conducting research using search engines.

The purpose of your abstract is to express the key points of your research, clearly and concisely. An abstract must always be well considered, as it is the primary element of your work that readers will come across.

An abstract should be a short paragraph (around 300 words) that summarizes the findings of your journal article. Ordinarily an abstract will be comprised of:

What your research is about

What methods have been used

What your main findings are

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements can appear to be a small aspect of your journal article, however it is still important. This is where you acknowledge the individuals who do not qualify for co-authorship, but contributed to your article intellectually, financially, or in some other manner.

When you acknowledge someone in your academic texts, it gives you more integrity as a writer as it shows that you are not claiming other academic’s ideas as your own intellectual property. It can also aid your readers in their own research journeys.

Introduction

An introduction is a pivotal part of the article writing process. An introduction not only introduces your topic and your stance on the topic, but it also (situates/contextualizes) your argument in the broader academic field.

The main body is where your main arguments and your evidence are located. Each paragraph will encapsulate a different notion and there will be clear linking between each paragraph.

Your conclusion should be an interpretation of your results, where you summarize all of the concepts that you introduced in the main body of the text in order of most to least important. No new concepts are to be introduced in this section.

References and citations

References and citations should be well balanced, current and relevant. Although every field is different, you should aim to cite references that are not more than 10 years old if possible. The studies you cite should be strongly related to your research question.

Clarity is key

Make your writing accessible by using clear language. Writing that is easy to read, is easier to understand too.

You may want to write for a global audience – to have your research reach the widest readership. Make sure you write in a way that will be understood by any reader regardless of their field or whether English is their first language.

Write your journal article with confidence, to give your reader certainty in your research. Make sure that you’ve described your methodology and approach; whilst it may seem obvious to you, it may not to your reader. And don’t forget to explain acronyms when they first appear.

Engage your audience. Go back to thinking about your audience; are they experts in your field who will easily follow technical language, or are they a lay audience who need the ideas presented in a simpler way?

Be aware of other literature in your field, and reference it

Make sure to tell your reader how your article relates to key work that’s already published. This doesn’t mean you have to review every piece of previous relevant literature, but show how you are building on previous work to avoid accidental plagiarism.

When you reference something, fully understand its relevance to your research so you can make it clear for your reader. Keep in mind that recent references highlight awareness of all the current developments in the literature that you are building on. This doesn’t mean you can’t include older references, just make sure it is clear why you’ve chosen to.

How old can my references be?

Your literature review should take into consideration the current state of the literature.

There is no specific timeline to consider. But note that your subject area may be a factor. Your colleagues may also be able to guide your decision.

Researcher’s view

Grasian Mkodzongi, Ruth First Prize Winner

Top tips to get you started

Communicate your unique point of view to stand out. You may be building on a concept already in existence, but you still need to have something new to say. Make sure you say it convincingly, and fully understand and reference what has gone before.

Editor’s view

Professor Len Barton, Founding Editor of Disability and Society

Be original

Now you know the features of a journal article and how to construct it. This video is an extra resource to use with this guide to help you know what to think about before you write your journal article.

Expert help for your manuscript

Taylor & Francis Editing Services  offers a full range of pre-submission manuscript preparation services to help you improve the quality of your manuscript and submit with confidence.

Related resources

How to write your title and abstract

Journal manuscript layout guide

Improve the quality of English of your article

How to edit your paper

Writing a Research Paper for an Academic Journal: A Five-step Recipe for Perfection

The answer to writing the perfect research paper is as simple as following a step-by-step recipe. Here we bring to you a recipe for effortlessly planning, writing, and publishing your paper as a peer reviewed journal article.

Updated on March 15, 2022

As a young researcher, getting your paper published as a journal article is a huge milestone; but producing it may seem like climbing a mountain compared to, perhaps, the theses, essays, or conference papers you have produced in the past.

You may feel overwhelmed with the thought of carrying innumerable equipment and may feel incapable of completing the task. But, in reality, the answer to writing the perfect research paper is as simple as following a recipe with step-by-step instructions.

In this blog, I aim to bring to you the recipe for effortlessly planning, writing, and publishing your paper as a peer reviewed journal article. I will give you the essential information, key points, and resources to keep in mind before you begin the writing process for your research papers.

Secret ingredient 1: Make notes before you begin the writing process

Because I want you to benefit from this article on a personal level, I am going to give away my secret ingredient for producing a good research paper right at the beginning. The one thing that helps me write literally anything is — cue the drum rolls — making notes.

Yes, making notes is the best way to remember and store all that information, which is definitely going to help you throughout the process of writing your paper. So, please pick up a pen and start making notes for writing your research paper.

Step 1. Choose the right research topic

Although it is important to be passionate and curious about your research article topic, it is not enough. Sometimes the sheer excitement of having an idea may take away your ability to focus on and question the novelty, credibility, and potential impact of your research topic.

On the contrary, the first thing that you should do when you write a journal paper is question the novelty, credibility, and potential impact of your research question.

It is also important to remember that your research, along with the aforementioned points, must be original and relevant: It must benefit and interest the scientific community.

All you have to do is perform a thorough literature search in your research field and have a look at what is currently going on in the field of your topic of interest. This step in academic writing is not as daunting as it may seem and, in fact, is quite beneficial for the following reasons:

• You can determine what is already known about the research topic and the gaps that exist.
• You can determine the credibility and novelty of your research question by comparing it with previously published papers.
• If your research question has already been studied or answered before your first draft, you first save a substantial amount of time by avoiding rejections from journals at a much later stage; and second, you can study and aim to bridge the gaps of previous studies, perhaps, by using a different methodology or a bigger sample size.

So, carefully read as much as you can about what has already been published in your field of research; and when you are doing so, make sure that you make lots of relevant notes as you go along in the process. Remember, your study does not necessarily have to be groundbreaking, but it should definitely extend previous knowledge or refute existing statements on the topic.

Secret ingredient 2: Use a thematic approach while drafting your manuscript

For instance, if you are writing about the association between the level of breast cancer awareness and socioeconomic status, open a new Word or Notes file and create subheadings such as “breast cancer awareness in low- and middle-income countries,” “reasons for lack of awareness,” or “ways to increase awareness.”

Under these subheadings, make notes of the information that you think may be suitable to be included in your paper as you carry out your literature review. Ensure that you make a draft reference list so that you don't miss out on the references.

Step 2: Know your audience

Finding your research topic is not synonymous with communicating it, it is merely a step, albeit an important one; however, there are other crucial steps that follow. One of which is identifying your target audience.

Now that you know what your topic of interest is, you need to ask yourself “Who am I trying to benefit with my research?” A general mistake is assuming that your reader knows everything about your research topic. Drafting a peer reviewed journal article often means that your work may reach a wide and varied audience.

Therefore, it is a good idea to ponder over who you want to reach and why, rather than simply delivering chunks of information, facts, and statistics. Along with considering the above factors, evaluate your reader's level of education, expertise, and scientific field as this may help you design and write your manuscript, tailoring it specifically for your target audience.

Here are a few points that you must consider after you have identified your target audience:

• Shortlist a few target journals: The aims and scope of the journal usually mention their audience. This may help you know your readers and visualize them as you write your manuscript. This will further help you include just the right amount of background and details.
• View your manuscript from the reader's perspective: Try to think about what they might already know or what they would like more details on.
• Include the appropriate amount of jargon: Ensure that your article text is familiar to your target audience and use the correct terminology to make your content more relatable for readers - and journal editors as your paper goes through the peer review process.
• Keep your readers engaged: Write with an aim to fill a knowledge gap or add purpose and value to your reader's intellect. Your manuscript does not necessarily have to be complex, write with a simple yet profound tone, layer (or sub-divide) simple points and build complexity as you go along, rather than stating dry facts.
• Be specific: It is easy to get carried away and forget the essence of your study. Make sure that you stick to your topic and be as specific as you can to your research topic and audience.

Secret ingredient 3: Clearly define your key terms and key concepts

Do not assume that your audience will know your research topic as well as you do, provide compelling details where it is due. This can be tricky. Using the example from “Secret ingredient 2,” you may not need to define breast cancer while writing about breast cancer awareness. However, while talking about the benefits of awareness, such as early presentation of the disease, it is important to explain these benefits, for instance, in terms of superior survival rates.

Step 3: Structure your research paper with care

After determining the topic of your research and your target audience, your overflowing ideas and information need to be structured in a format generally accepted by journals.

Most academic journals conventionally accept original research articles in the following format: Abstract, followed by the Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion sections, also known as the IMRaD, which is a brilliant way of structuring a research paper outline in a simplified and layered format. In brief, these sections comprise the following information:

In closed-access journals, readers have access to the abstract/summary for them to decide if they wish to purchase the research paper. It's an extremely important representative of the entire manuscript.

All information provided in the abstract must be present in the manuscript, it should include a stand-alone summary of the research, the main findings, the abbreviations should be defined separately in this section, and this section should be clear, decluttered, and concise.

Introduction

This section should begin with a background of the study topic, i.e., what is already known, moving on to the knowledge gaps that exist, and finally, end with how the present study aims to fill these gaps, or any hypotheses that the authors may have proposed.

This section describes, with compelling details, the procedures that were followed to answer the research question.

The ultimate factor to consider while producing the methods section is reproducibility; this section should be detailed enough for other researchers to reproduce your study and validate your results. It should include ethical information (ethical board approval, informed consent, etc.) and must be written in the past tense.

This section typically presents the findings of the study, with no explanations or interpretations. Here, the findings are simply stated alongside figures or tables mentioned in the text in the correct sequential order. Because you are describing what you found, this section is also written in the past tense.

Discussion and conclusion

This section begins with a summary of your findings and is meant for you to interpret your results, compare them with previously published papers, and elaborate on whether your findings are comparable or contradictory to previous literature.

This section also contains the strengths and limitations of your study, and the latter can be used to suggest future research. End this section with a conclusion paragraph, briefly summarizing and highlighting the main findings and novelty of your study.

Step 4: Cite credible research sources

Now that you know who and what you are writing for, it's time to begin the writing process for your research paper. Another crucial factor that determines the quality of your manuscript is the detailed information within. The introduction and discussion sections, which make a massive portion of the manuscript, majorly rely on external sources of information that have already been published.

Therefore, it is absolutely indispensable to extract and cite these statements from appropriate, credible, recent, and relevant literature to support your claims. Here are a few pointers to consider while choosing the right sources:

Cite academic journals

These are the best sources to refer to while writing your research paper, because most articles submitted to top journals are rejected, resulting in high-quality articles being filtered-out. In particular, peer reviewed articles are of the highest quality because they undergo a rigorous process of editorial review, along with revisions until they are judged to be satisfactory.

But not just any book, ideally, the credibility of a book can be judged by whether it is published by an academic publisher, is written by multiple authors who are experts in the field of interest, and is carefully reviewed by multiple editors. It can be beneficial to review the background of the author(s) and check their previous publications.

Cite an official online source

Although it may be difficult to judge the trustworthiness of web content, a few factors may help determine its accuracy. These include demographic data obtained from government websites (.gov), educational resources (.edu), websites that cite other pertinent and trustworthy sources, content meant for education and not product promotion, unbiased sources, or sources with backlinks that are up to date. It is best to avoid referring to online sources such as blogs and Wikipedia.

Do not cite the following sources

While citing sources, you should steer clear from encyclopedias, citing review articles instead of directly citing the original work, referring to sources that you have not read, citing research papers solely from one country (be extensively diverse), anything that is not backed up by evidence, and material with considerable grammatical errors.

Although these sources are generally most appropriate and valid, it is your job to critically read and carefully evaluate all sources prior to citing them.

Step 5: Pick the correct journal

Selecting the correct journal is one of the most crucial steps toward getting published, as it not only determines the weightage of your research but also of your career as a researcher. The journals in which you choose to publish your research are part of your portfolio; it directly or indirectly determines many factors, such as funding, professional advancement, and future collaborations.

The best thing you can do for your work is to pick a peer-reviewed journal. Not only will your paper be polished to the highest quality for editors, but you will also be able to address certain gaps that you may have missed out.

Besides, it always helps to have another perspective, and what better than to have it from an experienced peer?

A common mistake that researchers tend to make is leave the task of choosing the target journal after they have written their paper.

Now, I understand that due to certain factors, it can be challenging to decide what journal you want to publish in before you start drafting your paper, therefore, the best time to make this decision is while you are working on writing your manuscript. Having a target journal in mind while writing your paper has a great deal of benefits.

• As the most basic benefit, you can know beforehand if your study meets the aims and scope of your desired journal. It will ensure you're not wasting valuable time for editors or yourself.
• While drafting your manuscript, you could keep in mind the requirements of your target journal, such as the word limit for the main article text and abstract, the maximum number of figures or tables that are allowed, or perhaps, the maximum number of references that you may include.
• Also, if you choose to submit to an open-access journal, you have ample amount of time to figure out the funding.
• Another major benefit is that, as mentioned in the previous section, the aims and scope of the journal will give you a fair idea on your target audience and will help you draft your manuscript appropriately.

It is definitely easier to know that your target journal requires the text to be within 3,500 words than spending weeks writing a manuscript that is around, say, 5,000 words, and then spending a substantial amount of time decluttering. Now, while not all journals have very specific requirements, it always helps to short-list a few journals, if not concretely choose one to publish your paper in.

AJE also offers journal recommendation services if you need professional help with finding a target journal.

Secret ingredient 4: Follow the journal guidelines

Perfectly written manuscripts may get rejected by the journal on account of not adhering to their formatting requirements. You can find the author guidelines/instructions on the home page of every journal. Ensure that as you write your manuscript, you follow the journal guidelines such as the word limit, British or American English, formatting references, line spacing, line/page numbering, and so on.

Our ultimate aim is to instill confidence in young researchers like you and help you become independent as you write and communicate your research. With the help of these easy steps and secret ingredients, you are now ready to prepare your flavorful manuscript and serve your research to editors and ultimately the journal readers with a side of impact and a dash of success.

Lubaina Koti, BS

Scientific Writer

See our "Privacy Policy"

Unfortunately we don't fully support your browser. If you have the option to, please upgrade to a newer version or use Mozilla Firefox , Microsoft Edge , Google Chrome , or Safari 14 or newer. If you are unable to, and need support, please send us your feedback .

We'd appreciate your feedback. Tell us what you think! opens in new tab/window

7 steps to publishing in a scientific journal

April 5, 2021 | 10 min read

By Aijaz Shaikh, PhD

Before you hit “submit,” here’s a checklist (and pitfalls to avoid)

As scholars, we strive to do high-quality research that will advance science. We come up with what we believe are unique hypotheses, base our work on robust data and use an appropriate research methodology. As we write up our findings, we aim to provide theoretical insight, and share theoretical and practical implications about our work. Then we submit our manuscript for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. For many, this is the hardest part of research. In my seven years of research and teaching, I have observed several shortcomings in the manuscript preparation and submission process that often lead to research being rejected for publication. Being aware of these shortcomings will increase your chances of having your manuscript published and also boost your research profile and career progression.

Dr Aijaz Shaikh gives a presentation.

In this article, intended for doctoral students and other young scholars, I identify common pitfalls and offer helpful solutions to prepare more impactful papers. While there are several types of research articles, such as short communications, review papers and so forth, these guidelines focus on preparing a full article (including a literature review), whether based on qualitative or quantitative methodology, from the perspective of the management, education, information sciences and social sciences disciplines.

Writing for academic journals is a highly competitive activity, and it’s important to understand that there could be several reasons behind a rejection. Furthermore, the journal peer-review process is an essential element of publication because no writer could identify and address all potential issues with a manuscript.

1. Do not rush submitting your article for publication.

In my first article for Elsevier Connect – “Five secrets to surviving (and thriving in) a PhD program” – I emphasized that scholars should start writing during the early stages of your research or doctoral study career. This secret does not entail submitting your manuscript for publication the moment you have crafted its conclusion. Authors sometimes rely on the fact that they will always have an opportunity to address their work’s shortcomings after the feedback received from the journal editor and reviewers has identified them.

A proactive approach and attitude will reduce the chance of rejection and disappointment. In my opinion, a logical flow of activities dominates every research activity and should be followed for preparing a manuscript as well. Such activities include carefully re-reading your manuscript at different times and perhaps at different places. Re-reading is essential in the research field and helps identify the most common problems and shortcomings in the manuscript, which might otherwise be overlooked. Second, I find it very helpful to share my manuscripts with my colleagues and other researchers in my network and to request their feedback. In doing so, I highlight any sections of the manuscript that I would like reviewers to be absolutely clear on.

2. Select an appropriate publication outlet.

I also ask colleagues about the most appropriate journal to submit my manuscript to; finding the right journal for your article can dramatically improve the chances of acceptance and ensure it reaches your target audience.

Elsevier provides an innovative  Journal Finder opens in new tab/window  search facility on its website. Authors enter the article title, a brief abstract and the field of research to get a list of the most appropriate journals for their article. For a full discussion of how to select an appropriate journal see Knight and Steinbach (2008).

Less experienced scholars sometimes choose to submit their research work to two or more journals at the same time. Research ethics and policies of all scholarly journals suggest that authors should submit a manuscript to only one journal at a time. Doing otherwise can cause embarrassment and lead to copyright problems for the author, the university employer and the journals involved.

3. Read the aims and scope and author guidelines of your target journal carefully.

Once you have read and re-read your manuscript carefully several times, received feedback from your colleagues, and identified a target journal, the next important step is to read the aims and scope of the journals in your target research area. Doing so will improve the chances of having your manuscript accepted for publishing. Another important step is to download and absorb the author guidelines and ensure your manuscript conforms to them. Some publishers report that one paper in five does not follow the style and format requirements of the target journal, which might specify requirements for figures, tables and references.

Rejection can come at different times and in different formats. For instance, if your research objective is not in line with the aims and scope of the target journal, or if your manuscript is not structured and formatted according to the target journal layout, or if your manuscript does not have a reasonable chance of being able to satisfy the target journal’s publishing expectations, the manuscript can receive a desk rejection from the editor without being sent out for peer review. Desk rejections can be disheartening for authors, making them feel they have wasted valuable time and might even cause them to lose enthusiasm for their research topic. Sun and Linton (2014), Hierons (2016) and Craig (2010) offer useful discussions on the subject of “desk rejections.”

4. Make a good first impression with your title and abstract.

The title and abstract are incredibly important components of a manuscript as they are the first elements a journal editor sees. I have been fortunate to receive advice from editors and reviewers on my submissions, and feedback from many colleagues at academic conferences, and this is what I’ve learned:

The title should summarize the main theme of the article and reflect your contribution to the theory.

The abstract should be crafted carefully and encompass the aim and scope of the study; the key problem to be addressed and theory; the method used; the data set; key findings; limitations; and implications for theory and practice.

Dr. Angel Borja goes into detail about these components in “ 11 steps to structuring a science paper editors will take seriously .”

Learn more in Elsevier's free Researcher Academy opens in new tab/window

5. Have a professional editing firm copy-edit (not just proofread) your manuscript, including the main text, list of references, tables and figures.

The key characteristic of scientific writing is clarity. Before submitting a manuscript for publication, it is highly advisable to have a professional editing firm copy-edit your manuscript. An article submitted to a peer-reviewed journal will be scrutinized critically by the editorial board before it is selected for peer review. According to a statistic shared by Elsevier, between 30 percent and 50 percent of articles submitted to Elsevier journals are rejected before they even reach the peer-review stage, and one of the top reasons for rejection is poor language. A properly written, edited and presented text will be error free and understandable and will project a professional image that will help ensure your work is taken seriously in the world of publishing. On occasion, the major revisions conducted at the request of a reviewer will necessitate another round of editing. Authors can facilitate the editing of their manuscripts by taking precautions at their end. These include proofreading their own manuscript for accuracy and wordiness (avoid unnecessary or normative descriptions like “it should be noted here” and “the authors believe) and sending it for editing only when it is complete in all respects and ready for publishing. Professional editing companies charge hefty fees, and it is simply not financially viable to have them conduct multiple rounds of editing on your article. Applications like the spelling and grammar checker in Microsoft Word or Grammarly are certainly worth applying to your article, but the benefits of proper editing are undeniable. For more on the difference between proofreading and editing, see the description in Elsevier’s WebShop.

6. Submit a cover letter with the manuscript.

Never underestimate the importance of a cover letter addressed to the editor or editor-in-chief of the target journal. Last year, I attended a conference in Boston. A “meet the editors” session revealed that many submissions do not include a covering letter, but the editors-in-chief present, who represented renewed and ISI-indexed Elsevier journals, argued that the cover letter gives authors an important opportunity to convince them that their research work is worth reviewing.

Accordingly, the content of the cover letter is also worth spending time on. Some inexperienced scholars paste the article’s abstract into their letter thinking it will be sufficient to make the case for publication; it is a practice best avoided. A good cover letter first outlines the main theme of the paper; second, argues the novelty of the paper; and third, justifies the relevance of the manuscript to the target journal. I would suggest limiting the cover letter to half a page. More importantly, peers and colleagues who read the article and provided feedback before the manuscript’s submission should be acknowledged in the cover letter.

7. Address reviewer comments very carefully.

Editors and editors-in-chief usually couch the acceptance of a manuscript as subject to a “revise and resubmit” based on the recommendations provided by the reviewer or reviewers. These revisions may necessitate either major or minor changes in the manuscript. Inexperienced scholars should understand a few key aspects of the revision process. First, it important to address the revisions diligently; second, is imperative to address all the comments received from the reviewers and avoid oversights; third, the resubmission of the revised manuscript must happen by the deadline provided by the journal; fourth, the revision process might comprise multiple rounds. The revision process requires two major documents. The first is the revised manuscript highlighting all the modifications made following the recommendations received from the reviewers. The second is a letter listing the authors’ responses illustrating they have addressed all the concerns of the reviewers and editors. These two documents should be drafted carefully. The authors of the manuscript can agree or disagree with the comments of the reviewers (typically agreement is encouraged) and are not always obliged to implement their recommendations, but they should in all cases provide a well-argued justification for their course of action.

Given the ever increasing number of manuscripts submitted for publication, the process of preparing a manuscript well enough to have it accepted by a journal can be daunting. High-impact journals accept less than 10 percent of the articles submitted to them, although the acceptance ratio for special issues or special topics sections is normally over 40 percent. Scholars might have to resign themselves to having their articles rejected and then reworking them to submit them to a different journal before the manuscript is accepted.

The advice offered here is not exhaustive but it’s also not difficult to implement. These recommendations require proper attention, planning and careful implementation; however, following this advice could help doctoral students and other scholars improve the likelihood of getting their work published, and that is key to having a productive, exciting and rewarding academic career.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Professor Heikki Karjaluoto, Jyväskylä University School of Business and Economics for providing valuable feedback on this article.

Sun, H., & Linton, J. D. (2014).

Structuring papers for success: Making your paper more like a high impact publication than a desk reject opens in new tab/window

Technovation.

Craig, J. B. (2010).

Desk rejection: How to avoid being hit by a returning boomerang opens in new tab/window

Family Business Review

Hierons, R. M. (2016).

The dreaded desk reject opens in new tab/window

, Software Testing, Verification and Reliability .

Borja, A (2014): 

11 steps to structuring a science paper editors will take seriously

Elsevier Connect

Knight, L. V., & Steinbach, T. A. (2008).

Selecting an appropriate publication outlet: a comprehensive model of journal selection criteria for researchers in a broad range of academic disciplines opens in new tab/window

, International Journal of Doctoral Studies .

Tewin, K. (2015).

How to Better Proofread An Article in 6 Simple Steps opens in new tab/window ,

Day, R, & Gastel, B: How to write and publish a scientific paper. Cambridge University Press (2012)

Contributor

Aijaz shaikh, phd.

How to Write a Scholarly Article for Publication (15 Tips)

When researchers and scientists begin graduate school, few know that they will actually be writing much of the time. Because the focus in graduate school is on obtaining data and results, it is no surprise that most scientists aren't taught how to write well .

However, professional researchers write scholarly articles for publication, grant proposals, abstracts for conferences, theses or dissertations (if they get a Master’s or a PhD degree), books, conference presentations , and maybe even an acceptance speech for a Nobel Prize . Even if you think you know everything there is to know about writing in science, we encourage you to keep reading.

This is because there are some great research studies out there that unfortunately have been written very poorly in peer reviewed academic journals, even by good and experienced scientists. This may have nothing to do with a researcher not being a native English speaker. Rather, it may have everything to do with knowing (or not knowing) how to write a scholarly article .

And, even if you know how to write, maybe our tips will give you new insights or a better way of thinking about writing journal articles. After all, we all want to be more efficient researchers.

But first, what is a scholarly article?

A scholarly article is written on a specific topic of original research for a specific audience (other researchers in that field). Generally, a scholarly article is published in a peer reviewed journal. It typically details an original study and the results obtained. It should provide insights into the relevance of the study to the field of study. Alternative names for a scholarly article are a scientific manuscript, a journal article, an academic article, a scientific paper, a scholarly journal article, or an academic journal article. You can search for scholarly articles via the widely used Google Scholar or via other paid services, such as Web of Science .

How to write a scholarly article for publication (15 Tips):

1. make a template for all future manuscripts., 2. learn what to include and what not to include in each section., 3. don’t repeat yourself even if it is written in a different way., 4. start with the methods section., 5. write the other sections in this order: introduction, results and discussion, conclusions, and then the abstract., 6. gather your bibliography before you write the introduction and results and discussion sections., 7. make your figures and tables first. then, discuss them in order in your results and discussion section., 8. understand that the most successful and well-cited peer reviewed articles not only have great results but also explain the value of their results., 9. write the conclusions when you are fresh., 10. write the abstract last. but, first learn what should not be in an abstract., 11. think carefully about your title., 12. write the shorter sections when you need a break from working on the other longer sections., 13. reread the entire manuscript when you have written all sections. add or fill in any gaps you left. make sure it flows well., 14. if you write in your native language (not english), use simple, short sentences that will be easy to translate into english., 15. get a good translator if you did not write the original manuscript in english. then, have the paper proofread or edited by a professional editor or at least a colleague..

Ok, so that’s the list. Now, let's delve into the details of each of these tips.

1. Make a template for all your future manuscripts.

For example, write down the major sections in papers from journals in the field where you want to publish your research. You can also search online for the manuscript template of the journal where you want to submit your scientific paper. By making a template, you will always have somewhere to start when you begin writing a new article. This can be especially helpful if each of your papers is in the same field and on the same subject.

Become familiar with how to write an abstract , how to write an introduction, how to list your experimental (or computational) methods and your reagents and materials, how to explain your results, and how to make your conclusion section different from your abstract.

Knowing the ins and outs of these sections is crucial.

If you have read many peer reviewed articles, you may already have a good idea of what each of these sections typically includes. Also, you may have already developed you own opinions on what to include in each section. But, keep reading. We will provide some new tips on some of these sections for your manuscript. We also have other articles in our blog on some of these topics that may interest you.

3. Don’t repeat yourself even if it is rewritten in a different way.

So many researchers make this mistake. For example, the same exact sentence is often in both the abstract and in the methods or the conclusion section of their article. This may be the result of writing the abstract last and taking a few sentences from each section of the paper. This is understandable. But, your reader doesn't want to see the same sentence twice (or even the same information twice). They are busy scientists like you.

So, be concise and change up your wording enough so it doesn't sound like you are repeating yourself. Science Magazine even explicitly states in its manuscript template to “avoid repeating the conclusions at the end.” This will prevent potential issues with journal editors and peer reviewers .

4. Start with the Experimental section or Materials and Methods section.

This section of a scientific manuscript is the easiest to write. Write down what you did in your experiment, and the details will naturally come up that you need to fill in.

Before you know it, you will likely have one page of your paper written, which is a great starting point. This will give you momentum for writing the other sections.

Once complete, you should have a very good handle on what you did in your study. You should then be able to write the other sections with a clearer understanding of your experiments.

For most fields of study, these are the major sections that you need to include when you write an academic article. The introduction is the second easiest to write, followed by the results and discussion.

Sometimes, you should split up the results and discussion into two sections. But, this depends upon the journal's requirements and/or your personal style.

Leave the conclusions, abstract, and title for last. This way you have time to think about your study's broader impact and its relevance to your field of study.

6. Do your literature search and gather your bibliography before you write the Introduction and Results and Discussion sections.

This will provide you with previous studies to compare your work with in your results and discussion section. It will also help you introduce your study in your introduction.

You will be able to see what researchers in your field think are important details to include in their introductions. For example, if your study is on electron transfer mechanisms and all other studies explain the definition of electron transfer in their introductions, you may want to consider writing something similar as well. In case you were wondering, here’s how Wikipedia defines electron transfer:

But, be careful not to plagiarize other studies (this is a big no-no!). Add in some useful background information that prior similar papers have left out. You will want to add value to the body of literature on your topic, not rehash what others have already stated.

These are a few examples of how to write your introduction based on information in prior published papers.

There may be many other connections and gaps in your field of study. You should mention them in your introduction once you read and gather the appropriate bibliography.

If you want to know why you need to cite sources, we have a popular article on the importance of referencing .

Make your figures and tables first before you start writing about your data/results. Then, organize their order. Once you know what their order should be in your scholarly article, you have an outline for your results section.

Then, start with Figure 1. Describe it and tell what the takeaway message is and what result it shows. If you have organized your figures in the proper order, your discussion about Figure 1 will naturally lead to Figure 2 (or to Table 1). If it doesn't naturally progress, change the figure order if needed. Then, continue writing about them in order.

This method should make it easy to write about all your data and results. When appropriate, mix in comparisons of your data with prior studies’ results. You should start to see the bigger picture of why your results matter.

Don’t worry that you are going through an ‘analysis’ phase of your results while writing your scientific manuscript. This is normal.

Sometimes, it isn't until you write down your results and analyze them in relation to other studies that you begin to see the bigger picture. It's hard to do that sometimes when you only have figures and tables in front of you.

Writing the paper can actually help define the value of your study.

8. Understand that the most successful and well-cited peer reviewed articles (and most highly cited authors ) not only have great results but also explain the value of their results.

You need not be boastful, but you should clearly state the relevance of your results.

These types of sentences are critical. With these sentences, you should tell the reader why they should care.

How does your study fill a void?

How is it useful to future studies and innovations?

Are your methods new and extremely useful?

Answering these questions can differentiate a great article in Nature from a mediocre paper in a low-tier journal. Mediocre articles give their results and state that the results are important. But, they do not explain why they are important. Great papers explain the relevance well and give details on why.

Receive Free Grammar and Publishing Tips via Email

The conclusion section can be tough. It can be easy to perform a study but hard to make conclusions or discuss why the results happened.

And, let's face it, you are tired of this project by now and just want to move on to the next exciting study. Writing is often the most dreaded part of science for most researchers.

Yet, it is the main way that you tell other researchers and colleagues about your original studies and results.

So, make writing the conclusion section easier by being kind to yourself when you get to this point. Look back at the other sections you have already written. Now, marvel at your progress (even if you have written many papers before, it's always an accomplishment!).

OK, now take the day off (or better yet, work on some other project), and come back to the conclusion section tomorrow. Then, get up early, have a nice breakfast, and sit down to work. Ready. Set. Write.

Write what you think was most important about your study and results.

Why does this research even matter?

What is the link between your study and prior similar studies?

What, if anything, was groundbreaking about your results?

Answer at least some of these questions in your conclusions. Then, you are on your way to writing why the study is relevant.

Put the pieces together.

Make a conjecture about what mechanisms are at work (this may be best laid out in your results and discussion section if it requires major discussion).

Make estimations.

Make projections, and talk about what is still lacking that requires future study.

You may even gain new ideas for future studies, future grant proposals, or your dissertation (if you are a student). Then, reread it to make sure you included all your “conclusions."

The abstract is not just sentences taken from the main manuscript.

The abstract is not a literature review. It should not only provide background information without mentioning the results of your study.

The abstract is not a mini-methods section. You should not include every detail about how you performed your study.

The abstract should generally have this outline:

1 sentence on background,

1 sentence on the purpose and what you studied generally ,

1-2 sentences on your methods,

1-2 sentences on your results,

1 conclusion sentence, and

1 outlook sentence.

Of course, you may need to adjust these numbers depending upon your specific study. You can find some rules for writing a good abstract in our past article on this topic.

The title of your scholarly article is what readers will see first. If it's not compelling and concise but informative, readers won’t continue reading the paper or even the abstract.

This means you could miss out on a citation. So, think long and hard about what words to include in the title of your scholarly article.

This includes thinking about what keywords should be in your title .

Keywords are the words that researchers may use to search for your topic.

Write the Acknowledgements, Supporting Information , and list of keywords when you need a break.

For example, if you are writing the conclusions but are having trouble making a connection with prior studies, stop!

Instead, spend some time on the shorter sections so that you continue your momentum with writing. This will give your brain a break for a while from the main task. You will have a sense of accomplishment as you continue to make progress and will not get discouraged.

As an example, often determining who to acknowledge is easier than writing your conclusions.

But, don't use this advice as an excuse to not get back to the main task of writing the main sections of the paper. To keep this from being too much of a distraction, set a timer for 30 minutes. During this time, you can relax a little and work on minor sections of the article.

Then, get back to work on the bigger sections after the time is up. You may even find that you can actually come up with a good idea or a good phrase to include in one of your main article sections while taking this “break”. Your brain may keep working on the task even when you stop actively working on it, and it's pretty cool when this happens.

You should be able to see what sections are choppy. Look for sections that don’t have a good logical flow. Try to do this all in one sitting or at least all in one day when you can give your article your full focus. Then, work on the problem areas one by one .

Many researchers from non-English speaking countries have been taught to write beautiful, long sentences that are reminiscent of poetry.

These are great oftentimes in the native language and for the native audience of other researchers. However, the problem is that the long, beautiful sentences do not translate well into English.

If translated literally into English, the long sentences often sound fluffy and include too many unnecessary phrases. This makes the actual point of the sentence difficult to determine.

English-speaking researchers, editors, and peer reviewers will unfortunately look at your paper as being too wordy. This is because researchers in English-speaking countries are taught to write concisely.

To avoid this, if you write in your native language, try to use short, active sentences that will be easy to translate. For most languages, this means that your subject and verb should be at the beginning of the sentence and easy to pick out.

Avoid adding in unnecessary phrases. We have an article on some phrases to avoid in scientific writing that you may want to review.

For example, avoid ‘in other words’ and choose ‘thus’ instead. This is a simple example, but the point is that you want to be short and to the point without fluff.

Conciseness is key to a well-written scientific paper in English.

We aren’t saying this because translating and English editing is our business. We say this because we believe that every scholarly article aimed at publication will benefit from editing.

Also, English is the major language of science .

So, if you want your research article to be read internationally, it should be published in an English-language journal and be written in English.

If you cannot write it in English, you need a good translator who will translate it from your native language into English. It should then be edited by a native English speaker who preferably has expertise in your field of study.

You may have noticed a general theme of this article - your paper should show its relevance to your field of study.

If you explain the importance of your study, your paper will be heavily cited. Your colleagues may then acknowledge you as an expert in your field.

Writing is a fluid art that should be adjusted and tweaked to meet the needs of your target audience. We hope these 15 tips help you on your scholarly article-writing journey and help you publish your research in a top journal !

Do you use these methods or different methods when writing your scholarly articles?

We would love to hear your ideas and comments and discuss them in future articles.

Contact us and start a conversation!

Comments or Suggestions?

Complete our Blog Feedback Survey and Receive 10% Off Your First Editing or Translation Order!

About the Authors:

This article was collectively written by a dedicated group of our in-house PhD editors and writers who have decades of scientific publishing and research experience.

Connect With Us

Dissertation Editing and Proofreading Services Discount (New for 2018)

May 3, 2017.

For March through May 2018 ONLY, our professional dissertation editing se...

Thesis Editing and Proofreading Services Discount (New for 2018)

For March through May 2018 ONLY, our thesis editing service is discounted...

Neurology includes Falcon Scientific Editing in Professional Editing Help List

March 14, 2017.

Neurology Journal now includes Falcon Scientific Editing in its Professio...

Useful Links

Academic Editing | Thesis Editing | Editing Certificate | Resources

Article Writing

Ai generator.

Different writing compositions are used to inform various target audiences. They can be find in almost any source, which includes print media and online sources. With the advancement of modern technology, such sources have become more easier to access by the day. The word article can be used to refer to a brief written composition which is often found among other compositions typically included in different publications (e.g. newspaper , magazines, online, etc). An article can tackle about different topics, depending on the writer, and is usually intended for a target audience.

What Is Article Writing? Article writing is a process of creating written pieces of content, paragraphs to reach a broad audience through different platforms. These platforms include newspapers, magazines, journals, and other publishing mediums. The goal is to engage readers by sharing information, stories, or opinions in a written format. This type of writing is common in various media outlets, making it an essential way to communicate and connect with people.

Writers present information in various ways, such as in an informative writing  or argumentative writing form. Basis of information written on articles may vary. Such facts may be gathered from different sources, such as eyewitness accounts, one on one interviews, and online, among others.

Download Sample Article Writing Bundle

Article Writing Format

An article will have an Introduction, Body Paragraphs and Conclusion . The introduction Briefly explains the topic and makes user strict to the content. The body paragraphs explains the subject in detail with evidence, examples, stats, arguments. The conclusion summarizes the important points to give overview to the reader.

1. Introduction

The introduction in article writing is the first section that sets the stage for the entire article. It serves to grab the reader’s attention and give them a reason to keep reading. This part typically includes:

Hook : Start with an interesting fact, question, or statement to grab attention. Background Information : Provide context or background related to the topic. Thesis Statement : Clearly state the main idea or purpose of the article.

2. Body Paragraph

In article writing, a body paragraph is a key section where the main ideas and arguments are developed. Each body paragraph typically follows this structure

Subheadings : Organize the content with relevant subheadings. Main Points : Discuss each main point in separate paragraphs. Supporting Information : Provide evidence, examples, and details. Clarity and Flow : Use simple language and smooth transitions.

3. Conclusion

The conclusion in article writing is the final section where the writer wraps up the discussion. It serves several key purposes:

Summary : Recap the main arguments or points. Final Thoughts : Conclude with a compelling closing statement or call to action.

Article Samples on Various Topics

Environment article samples.

• Water Conservation
• Need to Save Water
• Global Warming and Climate Change
• Deforestation
• Environment and Nature

Society and Culture Article Samples

• Importance of Education
• Teacher’s Day
• US Independence Day
• Discrimination
• Homelessness
• Women Empowerment
• Child Labor
• Globalization

Technology and Innovation Article Samples

• Artificial Intelligence (AI) – The Future of Technology
• Machine Learning
• Robotics and Automachines Manufacturing
• Wearable Technology and Its Health Applications
• 3D Printing Innovations and Applications
• Nano-technology: Advancements and Future Prospects
• Blockchain Beyond Cryptocurrency
• 5G Network Expansion and Its Impacts
• The Future of Electric and Autonomous Vehicles
• Cybersecurity: Protecting Our Digital World
• Augmented Reality (AR) and Virtual Reality (VR) in Education
• Big Data Analytics and Its Role in Business Decision Making
• Internet of Things (IoT) and Smart Home Innovations

Health and Lifestyle Article Samples

• Health is Wealth
• Healthy Eating
• Impact of Social Media on Teenagers
• The Importance of Physical Fitness in Student Life
• Mental Health

Education Article Samples

• The Evaluation of Online Learning and its Impacts
• The Role of Technology in Modern Education
• Road Safety

Articles Writing Examples & Templates in PDF and DOC

Newspaper article writing  example.

Creative Article Writing for School

Technical Article Writing Example

Short Article Writing  Example

Medical Article Sample Writing  Example

Sample Article Writing  Example

Free SEO Article Writing  Example

Persuasive Article Travel  Example

Importance of Article Writing

Articles deliver information effectively, like other persuasive writing compositions. Which explains why article writing is an important skill which needs to be developed. The process of article writing, as compared to writing other compositions can be tricky.

For example, a news article needs to be written without carrying any biased opinion from the writer. Article writing requires the writer to gather accurate information from reliable sources of information. You may also see essay writing examples

Basically, article writing helps the writer develop both the writing and data gathering writing skills—which in turn develops his/her communication skills. At the end of the day, article writing, or writing in general, helps in improving an individual’s communication skills in general.

Types of Article Writing

Article writing is a versatile form of writing used in various contexts, including journalism, blogging, academic writing, and more. Here are some examples of different types of articles:

1. News Article

News articles report current events and provide facts and information about newsworthy topics. They typically follow the “inverted pyramid” structure, with the most important information presented at the beginning.

Example : “COVID-19 Vaccination Drive Reaches Milestone with 1 Billion Doses Administered Worldwide”

2. Feature Article

Feature articles offer in-depth coverage of a particular topic, often with a more narrative or storytelling approach. They provide background, analysis, and context, going beyond the surface details.

Example : “The Hidden Wonders of the Amazon Rainforest: A Journey into Biodiversity and Conservation Efforts”

3. Opinion or Editorial Article

Opinion articles express the author’s viewpoint on a particular issue. They are often persuasive in nature and present arguments or personal perspectives.

Example : “Why We Should Prioritize Renewable Energy Sources for a Sustainable Future”

4. How-To Article

How-to articles provide step-by-step instructions on how to perform a specific task, solve a problem, or achieve a goal.

Example : “How to Start Your Own Vegetable Garden: A Beginner’s Guide”

5. Review Article

Review articles assess and provide an opinion on a product, service, book, movie, or any subject of interest. They often include an evaluation of the item’s pros and cons.

Example : “Film Review: ‘The Trial of the Chicago 7’ – A Riveting Dive into 1960s Political Turmoil”

6. Academic or Research Article

Academic articles are scholarly publications that present research findings or discuss academic topics. They often follow specific formats and are published in academic journals.

Example : “The Impact of Climate Change on Coral Reefs: A Comprehensive Ecological Study”

7. Blog Post

Blog articles cover a wide range of topics and are typically written in a conversational, engaging style. They are commonly found on personal blogs, corporate blogs, and news websites.

Example : “10 Tips for Effective Time Management in a Remote Work Environment”

8. Travel Article

Travel articles describe and share experiences about specific travel destinations, providing insights, tips, and recommendations for travelers.

Example : “Exploring the Rich History and Culture of Rome: A Traveler’s Guide”

9. Technical or Instructional Article

Technical articles focus on complex or specialized subjects and are often used in industries like technology, science, or engineering. They explain technical concepts or processes.

Example: “A Comprehensive Guide to Data Encryption Algorithms for Cybersecurity Professionals”

10. Entertainment or Lifestyle Article

These articles cover topics related to entertainment, lifestyle, and popular culture, including celebrity news, fashion, food, and more.

Example: “10 Must-Watch Movies for Film Buffs this Summer”

How Do I Write a Good Article? – Step by Step Guide

Understand your audience and purpose.

• Identify Your Readers : Understand who your audience is – their interests, level of understanding, and what they are looking for in an article.
• Define Your Purpose : Clearly state your objective. Are you informing, persuading, or entertaining?

Choose a Compelling Topic

Select a topic that resonates with your audience. It should be relevant, timely, and offer a fresh perspective.

Research and Gather Information

• Source Credible Information : Use reliable sources to gather facts, statistics, and other pertinent data.
• Organize Your Research : Group similar information together for coherence.

Create an Outline

An outline helps in organizing thoughts and ensuring a logical flow. It typically includes:

• Introduction 
• Body Paragraphs – Sub Headings (H2), Child Headings (H3)

Write the Article

• Introduction : Start with a hook – a fact, question, or statement that grabs attention. Briefly outline what the article will cover.
• Body Paragraphs : Each paragraph should focus on a single idea, supported by facts, examples, and explanations.
• Transitions : Use smooth transitions to maintain flow and coherence.
• Conclusion : Summarize the main points and leave the reader with something to think about.

Starting an Article

What is written at the beginning of an article? At the beginning of an article, you typically find an introduction. This part is crucial because it aims to grab the reader’s attention. It usually starts with something interesting like a surprising fact, a question, or a short story related to the topic. The introduction also gives a brief idea of what the article is about and sets the tone for the rest of the content.

Crafting a well-written article requires planning, research, and a keen understanding of your audience. By following this format, you can create articles that are not only informative and engaging but also resonate with your readers.

What is the Easiest way to write an Article? To write an effective article, first choose a topic that aligns with your interests and knowledge. Clearly determine your article’s purpose, such as informing or persuading. Conduct thorough research from reliable sources to support your content. Plan your article with a structured outline. Begin with an engaging introduction that includes a clear thesis statement. In the body, develop focused paragraphs, each addressing a single point, supported by evidence like facts or statistics. Write using clear, simple language for better understanding. Ensure your paragraphs smoothly transition to maintain flow. Conclude by summarizing the main points and restating the central message.

Common Mistakes to Avoid in Article Writing

• Ignoring the Audience : Not tailoring the content to the interests and understanding of your target readers.
• Lack of Clear Purpose : Not having a clear goal or message in your article.
• Poor Structure : Failing to organize the article in a logical, coherent manner.
• Overcomplicating Language : Using complex words or sentences that confuse readers.
• Repetitive Content : Repeating the same ideas or examples.
• Inadequate Research : Not backing up your points with accurate and reliable information.
• Plagiarism : Copying someone else’s work without giving credit.
• Ignoring SEO Principles : Not including relevant keywords for online articles, which helps in search engine ranking.
• Skipping Proofreading : Not checking for spelling, grammar, or punctuation errors.
• Neglecting a Strong Conclusion : Failing to summarize the main points or ending the article abruptly.

Avoiding these common mistakes can significantly improve the quality and effectiveness of your article writing.

Do’s and Don’ts of Article Writing

Quick Overview on How to Write an Article – Tips & Tricks

Discover key tips for writing an engaging article: select a relevant topic, conduct thorough research, create a clear structure, and write with simplicity for an impactful, reader-friendly piece.

• Understand Your Audience: Tailor to audience interests and knowledge.
• Choose a Clear, Relevant Topic: Focus on specific, timely topics.
• Organize Your Ideas: Structure with clear outline and logical flow.
• Engaging Introduction: Start with an interesting hook; set tone.
• Strong Body Content: Maintain one idea per paragraph; use subheadings.
• Concise and Clear Language: Use simple language and active voice.
• Incorporate Research and Examples: Back points with research; cite sources.
• SEO Optimization: Include relevant keywords; write concise meta descriptions.
• Edit and Proofread: Review for errors; seek feedback.
• Effective Conclusion: Summarize key points; end impactfully.
• Stay Consistent: Write regularly; learn from feedback.

What Is An Article?

An article is a written piece that informs, educates, entertains, or persuades readers about a specific subject. It can take various forms, including news reports, opinion pieces, how-to guides, or in-depth features. Articles are published in newspapers, magazines, websites, and academic journals, offering information, analysis, and commentary to a wide audience.

What Makes a Strong Article?

A strong article is well-researched, clearly written, engaging, and informative. It should have a compelling introduction, a coherent structure, and a conclusive ending.

Are Articles Hard to Write?

Writing articles can be challenging but rewarding. It requires research, planning, and the ability to clearly convey ideas to your audience.

How Does an Article Look Like?

An article typically has a clear title, an engaging introduction, body paragraphs with headings, and a summarizing conclusion. It’s structured logically to guide the reader.

How many words should there be in an article?

The word count for an article can vary widely, typically ranging from 500 to 2000 words, depending on the topic, audience, and publication requirements.

Mastering article writing involves understanding your audience, choosing engaging topics, structuring your content logically, and using clear language. Remember to research thoroughly, use SEO strategies, and edit meticulously. By following these guidelines and tips, you can craft compelling articles that captivate and inform your readers, enhancing your writing skills in the process.

Text prompt

• Instructive
• Professional

Medical Article Sample Writing Example

Sample Article Writing Example

SEO Article Writing Example

• Colleges of Education
• Entertainment
• CoE Past Questions
• Personal Development
• Scholarships

Recommended Articles

Healthy life global sportsplex and mpota traditional council cut sod for the construction of multipurpose sports complex, healthy life global ceo inspires handball team in ghana to pursue success, save ghana football demonstration kicks off amidst valentine’s day celebrations, over 600 coaches ‘eyeing’ the black stars’ coaching job, life isn’t a competition but a journey, why do christians worship on sundays and not on saturdays, the national cathedral, a misplaced priority or a blessing, jesus christ died on thursday and not friday, release our outstanding arrears- nabco trainees to bawumia, ghana ranks second safest country in africa – statista 2024, ecg rejects calls for ‘dumsor’ timetable amidst three-week power outage, ecg and gridco announce 3-week power outages due to gas challenge from nigeria, 2024 admissions: tertiary institutions and their application deadlines, ucc ranked first in ghana for good health and well-being (sdg 3), ges warns public of fake recruitment circular targeting diploma and university graduates, nss releases pin codes for final year university students, strike: cetag withdraws from negotiations with nlc, nss allowance: no payment since the start of service – trained teachers lament, cetag strike: nlc bars cetag from participating in meetings, cetag strike: outcome of the nlc meeting with cetag and fwsc, sltf:  items needed to apply for a student loan, nursing & midwifery training college: check your school and interview status now, nurses and midwives trainees lament hardship, beware of scams: sltf warns beneficiaries,  ges announces approved subjects for study leave with pay in 2024, ges introduces new directive on document submission, study leave applications open for 2024/2025 academic year, ges to recruit indigenous teachers for bawku and pusiga schools, tips on how to be always happy in life, nine (9) mindsets of the most successful people, here are 14 simple steps to success, toxic individuals: here are 5 people that will ruin your life, the deep-rooted reason behind africa’s ‘perpetual poverty’, there is no such place as heaven – ajagurajah, judge releases self acclaimed kenya jesus after lawyer demanded court to produce real jesus, the importance of attending church and gathering with other believers, shama to witness nana 1 musical concert for emerging artists, ellen tsotso kangni crowned miss shama 2023, miss shama 2023: date, venue, constestants, voting process & more, unleash your beauty as a young lady by joining miss african beauty ghana pageant now, ghs announces vacancies for newly qualified medical doctors, nursing training forms for the 2024/2025 academic year out – apply here, re: recruitment of general nursing applicants, ministry of health begins recruitment of medical and dental officers, how to write an effective article for publication in a local newspaper.

Writing an article for publication in a local newspaper can be an effective way to share your thoughts, expertise, or a specific story with a wider audience.

Here is a comprehensive guide on how to write such an article, along with a sample to help you understand the structure and content.

Choose a Relevant Topic:

Select a topic that is timely, relevant, and interesting to your local community. It could be related to local events, issues, or provide valuable information or insights.

Research and Gather Information:

Collect relevant data, facts, and quotes that support your topic. Conduct interviews with experts or people involved in the subject matter to gather unique perspectives.

Craft a Strong Headline:

Create a catchy headline that grabs readers’ attention and immediately communicates the focus of your article. It should be concise and engaging.

Write an Engaging Introduction:

Start with an attention-grabbing opening sentence or a hook that intrigues readers and provides an overview of the article’s main point. The introduction should be concise and compelling.

Develop the Body:

Expand on the main point in the body of the article. Divide it into paragraphs with clear subheadings and ensure a logical flow.

Present relevant information, arguments, or examples to support your main idea. Use quotes from interviews or credible sources to add credibility and interest.

Maintain a Neutral Tone:

When writing for a local paper, it’s essential to adopt a neutral tone and avoid biases or personal opinions.

Stick to the facts and present different perspectives if applicable.

Keep It Concise and Clear:

Newspaper articles generally have a word limit, so ensure your writing is concise.

Avoid complex jargon or technical language that may confuse readers. Write clearly and use simple, easy-to-understand language.

Include Relevant Images:

If possible, provide relevant images that amplify the article’s message or help visualize the topic.

Make sure the images are high-quality and properly credited.

Conclude Effectively:

Summarize the key points of your article in the conclusion. You can also end with a thought-provoking question, a call-to-action, or a suggestion for further exploration.

Edit and Proofread:

Before submitting your article, review it for grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

Ensure the article flows smoothly and correct any inconsistencies or unclear statements. Edit it multiple times to enhance its quality.

A Sample Article For Publication in a Local Newspaper ;

“Community Gardens: Cultivating Connection and Sustainability”

Community gardens are sprouting up across our town, providing not only fresh produce but also an opportunity for neighbours to connect and promote environmental sustainability.

These green spaces foster a sense of community and bring together people from diverse backgrounds who share a common interest in gardening.

According to Mary Johnson, a local gardening enthusiast and founding member of the community garden initiative, these spaces serve as a haven for urban dwellers lacking access to yards or suitable gardening spaces.

The gardens, located in abandoned lots and public parks, offer individuals the chance to grow their vegetables, flowers, and herbs, contributing to a sustainable lifestyle.

Not only do community gardens provide access to fresh, organically grown produce, but they also promote social interaction.

Tom Robertson, a long-time gardener and advocate, believes that these spaces foster a sense of camaraderie among neighbors as they share gardening tips, successes, and even occasional frustrations.

The gardens become a meeting point for individuals from different age groups and cultural backgrounds, breaking down barriers and promoting cross-cultural exchange.

The benefits of community gardens ripple throughout the neighborhood, creating a positive impact on mental and physical health.

Studies have shown that spending time in green spaces reduces stress levels and improves overall well-being. Many gardener s find solace and contentment in tending to their plants, nurturing them from seedlings to harvest.

As our community faces challenges such as food insecurity and social isolation, community gardens have emerged as a powerful solution.

They offer a place for individuals to connect, grow, and learn together, while also promoting environmental consciousness.

By supporting initiatives like these, we can foster a stronger sense of community and work towards a sustainable future.

Note: Remember, each newspaper may have specific guidelines or word limits, so be sure to check those before submitting your article for publication. Good luck with your writing!

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

7 addictions you must break to reach your fullest potential, 12 habits of highly intelligent people, ten (10) ways to pass your exams with ease, qualifications to teach in senior high school in ghana, qualifications required to teach in college of education, know these 5 ways to overcome difficulties in your life, success demands these 6 essential traits, a step-by-step guide on how to write a resignation letter | sample.

Coleman Publications is an education focused blog dedicated to credible News and insights. We provide updates relating to Ghana Education Service, Articles in Education, Colleges of Education News, University News, Political news, Religious News, Sports and events across the education sector in Ghana and beyond. Our team of educators will publish nothing but the best and trusted content to inform our cherished readers.

━ follow us

Coleman Publications© 2022 All Rights reserved

NSS Allowance: No payment Since the start of service – Trained...

Nss opens applications for 2024/2025 national service personnel deployment, komenda college of education holds assai community lecture series, climate change....

How to Choose and Develop a Research Topic: Ideas and Examples

Discover strategies for choosing and developing a compelling research topic. Generate ideas, refine your topic, and conduct effective research.

Kate Windsor

Jun 26, 2024

Selecting the right research paper topic is a crucial step in the research process. A well-chosen topic can lay the foundation for a successful research project, while a poorly chosen one can lead to frustration and wasted effort. Choosing an interesting research topic can be challenging, especially for those new to the research field. 

This article aims to provide guidance and inspiration for researchers seeking to choose and develop a compelling research topic and/or topics to write. 

Understanding the Characteristics of a Good Research Topic

A good research topic should possess several key characteristics:

• Originality and novelty: The topic should contribute new knowledge or insights to the field, rather than simply rehashing existing research.
• **Feasibility and relevance: **The topic should be feasible to research within the given timeframe and resources, and relevant to the researcher's field of study.
• **Significance and impact: **The topic should have the potential to make a significant impact on the field and contribute to the advancement of knowledge.

Strategies for Generating Research Topic Ideas

Generating research topic ideas or thinking of topics to write a research on can be a daunting task, but there are several strategies that can help:

Brainstorming Techniques

• Mind mapping: Create a visual representation of your ideas and how they connect to each other.
• Freewriting: Write down your thoughts and ideas without censoring yourself, and then review what you've written to identify potential topics.
• Questioning: Ask yourself questions about your field of study, such as "What are the current gaps in knowledge?" or "What are the most pressing issues facing the field?".

Exploring Personal Interests and Experiences

Your personal interests and experiences can be a rich source of inspiration for research topics. Consider what you are passionate about and how it intersects with your field of study for your research paper ideas. Choose a topic that interests you.

Keeping Up with Current Trends and Developments

• Reading academic journals and publications: Stay up-to-date with the latest research in your field by regularly reading academic journals and publications.
• Attending conferences and seminars: Attend conferences and seminars to learn about current trends and developments in your field, and to network with other researchers.

Seeking Inspiration from AI for Research

AI for research can be a valuable tool for generating research topic ideas. AI algorithms can analyze vast amounts of data and identify patterns and trends that may not be immediately apparent to human researchers.

Easily pronounces technical words in any field

Narrowing Down and Refining Your Research Topic

Once you have generated some potential research topics, the next step is to narrow down and refine your topic:

• Identifying a broad area of interest: Start by identifying a broad area of interest within your field of study.
• Conducting preliminary research: Conduct preliminary research to gain a better understanding of the existing research in your area of interest.
• Formulating a specific research question: Formulate a specific research question that addresses a gap in the existing research or explores a new angle on a familiar topic. This research question will serve as the basis for your thesis or thesis statement.
• Considering the scope and feasibility of the topic: Consider the scope and feasibility of your topic, taking into account the timeframe and resources available to you.
• Ensuring the topic aligns with the requirements of your research paper or scientific paper: Make sure your topic aligns with the requirements of your research paper or scientific paper, such as word count, formatting, and citation style.

Developing Your Research Topic

Once you have narrowed down and refined your research topic, the next step is to develop it further:

Conducting a Literature Review

• Identifying key sources and references: Identify the key sources and references in your field of study that are relevant to your research topic.
• Synthesizing and analyzing existing research: Synthesize and analyze the existing research to identify gaps in knowledge and potential areas for further exploration.

Formulating Hypotheses or Research Objectives

Formulate hypotheses or research objectives based on your analysis of the existing research and your own insights and observations.

Defining Key Concepts and Variables

Define the key concepts and variables that are central to your research topic, and operationalize them in a way that is measurable and testable.

Outlining the Research Methodology

Outline the research methodology you will use to investigate your research topic, including data collection methods, sampling strategies, and data analysis techniques.

Tips on How to Write Faster and Efficiently

Writing a research paper can be a time-consuming process, but there are several tips and strategies that can help you  write faster and more efficiently:

• Break your writing into manageable chunks and set achievable goals for each writing session.
• Use outlines and mind maps to organize your thoughts and ideas before you start writing.
• Minimize distractions by finding a quiet workspace and turning off notifications on your devices.
• Take regular breaks to recharge and avoid burnout.
• Utilize writing tools and software, such as Grammarly or Scrivener , to streamline your writing process and improve the quality of your work.

Research Topic Ideas and Examples

Here are some examples of research topics in various fields of study:

Social Sciences

• The impact of social media on interpersonal relationships
• The role of education in reducing income inequality

Natural Sciences

• Exploring the potential of renewable energy sources
• Investigating the effects of climate change on biodiversity
• Analyzing the influence of popular culture on literature
• Examining the evolution of language in the digital age

Business and Economics

• The impact of remote work on employee productivity and job satisfaction
• Investigating the role of corporate social responsibility in consumer decision-making

Common Mistakes to Avoid When Choosing a Research Topic

When choosing a research topic, there are several common mistakes to avoid:

• **Choosing a topic that is too broad or too narrow: **A topic that is too broad may lack focus and depth, while a topic that is too narrow may limit the potential impact and significance of the research.
• Failing to consider the relevance and significance of the topic: A topic that is not relevant or significant to the field may not be worth researching, even if it is personally interesting to the researcher.
• **Neglecting to conduct sufficient preliminary research: **Failing to conduct sufficient preliminary research can lead to a lack of understanding of the existing research in the field, and may result in a topic that has already been thoroughly explored by other researchers. This can lead to wasted time and effort, as well as a lack of originality in the research.
• I**gnoring the importance of a well-crafted research paper title: **A well-crafted  research paper title can help to attract readers and convey the significance of the research. Ignoring the importance of the title can lead to a lack of engagement with the research.  A strong title should be concise, informative, and engaging, accurately reflecting the content and purpose of the research.

Choosing and developing a research topic is a crucial step in the research process, and one that requires careful consideration and planning. By understanding the characteristics of a good research topic, employing strategies for generating ideas, narrowing down and refining your topic, and developing it further through a literature review and research methodology, you can set yourself up for success in your research endeavors.

While the process of topic selection can be challenging, it is also an opportunity to explore your passions and interests, and to contribute new knowledge and insights to your field of study. By investing time and effort in selecting a compelling and feasible research topic, you can lay the foundation for a good research paper and a successful and impactful research project. 

Thesis Development

Literature Review

Academic Writing

Research Methodology

Research Idea Generation

Research Topic Selection

Recent articles

9 Free AI Tools for Research

Derek Pankaew

Academic research

Research papers

AI-powered research

Free AI tools

5 Best Reading Programs for Dyslexia: A Parent's Guide

Glice Martineau

Orton-Gillingham

Quick Guide to Getting a College Financial Aid

Jun 27, 2024

Student Loans

College Funding

Financial Aid

Supreme Court Rules for January 6 Rioter in Obstruction of Justice Case

Bu historian thomas whalen analyzes the ripple effects the decision may have on the presidential election.

About a quarter of the defendants charged with crimes related to their participation in the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol have been charged with obstruction, and two of the four charges against Donald Trump in his federal case also fall under the obstruction law at the heart of the Supreme Court’s decision Friday. Photo via AP/Jose Luis Magana

Molly Callahan

Siding with an off-duty Pennsylvania police officer who attended the “Stop the Steal” rally at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, Friday’s Supreme Court decision in Fischer v. United States made it more difficult to charge any January 6 Capitol rioters with obstruction of justice—including former president Donald J. Trump. 

The decision, widely viewed as a boon for Trump and the Republican party, came less than 12 hours after the first presidential debate of the 2024 election, which featured a stilted performance by President Joe Biden that left Democrats panicking .

“From the Democrats’ point of view, this is the cherry on top of a crap sundae,” says Thomas Whalen , a College of General Studies associate professor of social sciences. 

In the 6-3 decision , which included some unlikely alliances, Supreme Court justices ruled that federal prosecutors improperly charged hundreds of January 6 rioters with obstruction, a charge that comes with a maximum penalty of 20 years. The case hinged on part of a law that was enacted after the exposure of massive fraud and shredding of documents during the collapse of the energy giant Enron. 

The disputed language in the law prohibits anyone from “corruptly” destroying or concealing a government record, or who “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.”

It’s the “otherwise” that is at the heart of the Fischer case. Justices had to determine whether January 6 rioters who didn’t physically destroy documents, but whose actions were intended to disrupt the certification of President Joe Biden’s electoral victory, participated in obstruction of justice.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said that federal prosecutors interpreted the law too broadly, lumping together disparate actions that carry different penalties. Roberts was joined by four other conservative justices—Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh—as well as Kentanji Brown Jackson, who is typically more liberal. 

“Although the government’s all-encompassing interpretation may be literally permissible, it defies the most plausible understanding” of the law in question, Roberts writes, and “it renders an unnerving amount of statutory text mere surplusage. Given that [the law’s] subsection…was enacted to address the Enron disaster, not some further flung set of dangers, it is unlikely that Congress responded with such an unfocused and ‘grossly incommensurate patch.’” 

Amy Coney Barrett, typically more conservative, wrote the dissent. She was joined by liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

“Joseph Fischer allegedly participated in a riot at the Capitol that forced the delay of Congress’s joint session on January 6th,” Barrett writes. “Blocking an official proceeding from moving forward surely qualifies as obstructing or impeding the proceeding by means other than document destruction. Fischer’s alleged conduct thus falls within [the law’s] scope.” 

About a quarter of the defendants charged with crimes related to their participation in the January 6 riot have been charged with obstruction, and two of the four charges against Trump in his federal case also fall under the obstruction law at the heart of the Supreme Court’s decision Friday. 

In a separate case, the justices are expected to decide Monday whether Trump is immune from prosecution, broadly. Their ruling could render any implications from Friday’s decision, as they relate to Trump’s federal trial, basically moot. 

BU Today spoke with Whalen, whose research includes modern American politics and presidential leadership, about what the court’s obstruction decision means for Trump and the 2024 election already underway.

with Thomas Whalen

Bu today: broadly, how might this decision affect the 2024 election.

Whalen: Well, from the president’s point of view—and from a Democrat’s point of view—this is turning out to be a bad 24 hours. You had a hugely disastrous debate performance [Thursday night]. Now, this Supreme Court ruling, which seems to unravel the prosecution’s argument that this was by all accounts an insurrection against the United States government in a free and fair election. And I think at the very least, this is not a good sign about the case against Donald Trump by our government, because now, at least two of those counts might be thrown out. Speaking as a historian, when you have an insurrection—which is essentially a civil war against the federal government—there should be consequences. I don’t care how narrowly you define it, there should be legal recourse against individuals, particularly when they are storming the Capitol, destroying property, and attacking federal offices. The Supreme Court ruling now makes it very, very difficult for that to occur. And it seems to be like an open invitation in the future to further violence, particularly when it comes to the next election and how the electoral votes will be counted.

BU Today: Taking into account the debate on Thursday, what’s the overall impact of this decision on the presidential election? What’s at stake?

Whalen: The overall effect is that the rule of law is kind of becoming a joke in this country. These are serious charges. And to let these individuals off on such a narrow definition of the law is just absurd. And the irony here is that typically, conservatives and Republicans over the years have always branded themselves as the party of law and order. And what they are supporting here is, frankly, disorder and breaking the law. I think if you’re going to have a functioning democracy, you have to have a healthy respect for the law, whether you agree with it or not.

BU Today: What do you make of the unlikely split among Supreme Court justices in this case?

Whalen: In some sense, that made me feel good—it’s not strictly on rigid ideological grounds. Amy Coney Barrett recently has been giving signals that she is not going to take the hard right wing stance just out of a kind of loyalty to ideology. She is actually taking the time to think about these questions based on her interpretation of the rule of law. And that’s refreshing. But there is that hardcore conservatism on the Supreme Court. I think the public view of the Supreme Court is that it is a partisan group. And given the decisions, given how many precedents have been thrown out the window here [this term], it’s hard to dispute that at this point. Again, if you want to have a healthy democracy, you have to have a court system that all the people respect—whether you agree with the decisions or not. That’s been thoroughly eroded, though. It’s really been eroded since Bush v. Gore in 2000. And it’s just steadily gotten worse. Right now, we’re at the absolute nadir.

Explore Related Topics:

• Supreme Court
• Share this story
• 0 Comments Add

Senior Writer

Molly Callahan began her career at a small, family-owned newspaper where the newsroom housed computers that used floppy disks. Since then, her work has been picked up by the Associated Press and recognized by the Connecticut chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists. In 2016, she moved into a communications role at Northeastern University as part of its News@Northeastern reporting team. When she's not writing, Molly can be found rock climbing, biking around the city, or hanging out with her fiancée, Morgan, and their cat, Junie B. Jones. Profile

Comments & Discussion

Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (EST) and can only accept comments written in English. Statistics or facts must include a citation or a link to the citation.

Post a comment. Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest from BU Today

To do today: paul revere house, need to cool off head to one of the boston area’s many public pools, supreme court allows emergency abortions in idaho—for now, to do today: boston art & music soul festival, did you win two free tickets to tonight’s premiere of a quiet place: day one, worcester’s favorite steak-and-cheese sub shop comes to brookline, what’s hot in music this month: new albums, local concerts, to do today: brighton farmers market, what bu foodies have to say about the bear, beating a different drum, biden vs trump debate rematch: muted mics, 34 felonies, and the age issue, human trafficking case against local pizza chain owner got help from bu law clinic, to do today: live music with a view at the boston harbor hotel, court upholds gun ban for those accused of domestic violence; bu law expert explains, best summer study spots on bu’s campus, to do today: tour fenway park, five tips for navigating college without regrets, pov: what all that change americans leave behind at airport security checkpoints tells us, want to experience a true new england summer.

Trump's VP options: Sizing up their pros and cons from J.D. Vance to Kari Lake

Speculation has been mounting for months about who Donald Trump will choose as his running mate in the 2024 race for the White House. Will the presumptive 2024 GOP nominee pick someone who can expand the Republican tent? Will Trump opt for one of his longtime allies – or a former critic who's since joined the MAGA movement?

Here's a look at 19 of Trump's most visible options for a vice presidential candidate – and the pros and cons for each option as Republicans try to reclaim the White House.

Joe Biden is old. So is Donald Trump: So are millions of other American workers

Who has been mentioned as possible VP candidate?

At least 19 people have been mentioned as possible picks to serve as Trump's running mate. An announcement is expected by the start of the Republican National Convention on July 15 in Milwaukee, if not a drop sooner.

Greg Abbott | Katie Britt | Doug Burgum | Tucker Carlson | Ben Carson | Tom Cotton | Byron Donalds | Tulsi Gabbard | Sarah Huckabee Sanders | Kari Lake | Nancy Mace | Kristi Noem | Vivek Ramaswamy | Marco Rubio | Tim Scott | Elise Stefanik | Marjorie Taylor Greene | JD Vance | Glenn Youngkin

Greg Abbott

By John C. Moritz/Austin American-Statesman 

• Abbott has 10 years of experience as governor of the nation’s second largest state, which would likely give Republican voters confidence that he could step into the presidency should anything happen to the 78-year-old Trump. 
• Trump would have a staunch ally on the GOP hot-button issues of illegal immigration, gun rights and lowering taxes. 
• Abbott has been one of the most vociferous critics of President Joe Biden, and attack dog is part of the job description for any Trump vice presidential candidate. 
• Trump doesn’t need Abbott to carry Texas, which has been a Republican stronghold since 1980 and is expected to remain so this cycle. 
• Abbott is a white man who turns 67 eight days after Election Day, bringing little to the table when it comes to expanding Republican appeal among young voters and voters of color.
• Abbott does not appear to want the job. "I'd rather be governor of Texas," he said in Trump’s presence when the two appeared together at an event in February.  

Return to top

Katie Britt

By Rachel Barber/USA Today 

• Britt, 42, is young and a woman. That means she could appeal to two broad voting blocs that Trump has struggled to reach: young voters and female voters.
• If she is chosen and the pair wins the White House, there is little chance that a Democrat could win her Senate seat in deep-red Alabama.   
• Britt is a former lawyer with a relatively straightforward political background and few major controversies. 
• Other than two years served in the U.S. Senate, Britt doesn't have a long track record as an elected official and is relatively unvetted.  
• Her MAGA identity won’t help Trump secure moderate or independent voters. 
• Trump doesn’t need Britt to carry Alabama, which hasn’t voted for a Democratic president since 1976. 

Doug Burgum

By Joey Garrison/USA TODAY

• The governor is wealthy and a businessman, and he’s shown himself to be a valuable stumper for Trump on the campaign trail and on TV.  
• Burgum has transformed from a Trump skeptic – last year saying that he would not do business with the former real-estate mogul – to a defender of Trump.  
• His mild-mannered temperament poses no risk of stealing attention from the former president. In 2016, Trump showed his preference for a low-key VP when he picked Mike Pence.  
• Burgum would do little to expand Trump’s reach, and he wouldn't be the most popular choice among the MAGA base. Burgum’s state of North Dakota is solidly red.  
• He has few connections to Washington, no foreign policy experience, and until recently, few Republican voters knew who he was. 
• Burgum has shown his willingness to be loyal to Trump in recent months, but it’s unclear if he’s won the former president’s trust. It was only one year ago when he was criticizing Trump. 

Tucker Carlson

By Phillip M. Bailey/USA TODAY 

• The former Fox News host remains a face of conservative media who knows how to craft a message that appeals to Trump’s MAGA base.  
• A 2023 Gallup poll showed Carlson is the most popular news figure in the U.S, and that stems largely from being seen as a forbearer of Trumpism. The two share a distaste for liberal social causes, a skepticism of the U.S. intelligence community and a more isolationist foreign policy, particularly in terms of Russia. 
• Carlson and Trump have shown a good working rapport, at least publicly. Trump skipped the first GOP presidential debate in 2023 and opted for a 45-minute talk with Carlson instead. 
• Carlson’s true feelings about Trump were revealed as part of evidence in a lawsuit against Fox News. “I hate him passionately,” the TV host said in a text message to colleagues. 
• Carlson is a polarizing figure with years of controversial comments who is known to flirt with conspiracy theories that could further alienate independent voters. He was the centerpiece of a $1.6 billion lawsuit against Fox News by Dominion Voting Systems, which was the subject of false allegations about the 2020 election. 
• Being as popular as the person at the top of the ticket could be a disqualification. VP picks historically don’t outpace the presidential nominee. 

by Karissa Waddick/USA TODAY

• Carson has a track record of loyalty as former Housing and Urban Development secretary, where he was one of few Cabinet officials who served the entirety of Trump's first term.   
• He has defended Trump against accusations of racism in the past and could bring a larger slice of Black voters into the GOP coalition. 
• Carson has a low-key persona and is unlikely to overshadow Trump. At age 72, he also isn't likely to use a VP nomination as a springboard for a 2028 presidential bid. 
• Like Trump, Carson hails from Florida. Under the U.S. Constitution, the state’s Electoral College representatives couldn't vote for both Florida men, meaning Carson would probably need to establish residency outside of the Sunshine State.  
• Carson has advocated for a national ban on abortion access, which could hurt the Trump ticket among moderate and swing voters.
• Carson has a history of making controversial comments, including once arguing that the passage of the Affordable Care Act was more damaging to the U.S. than the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. 

By George Russell/USA TODAY Network

• Cotton is an outspoken firebrand who can relate to and mobilize the MAGA base.  
• His decade-plus of experience in Congress, Harvard Law degree and military service could help bolster the ticket’s appeal among more traditional GOP voters. 
• While Cotton is at least as conservative as Trump, his steady demeanor could complement Trump’s more turbulent style. 
• Cotton’s base of supporters overlaps with Trump’s, and it could be difficult for the pair to cultivate broad appeal beyond the MAGA movement. 
• Trump might calculate that another white man on the ticket won’t help him with outreach to female or Black voters.  
• Cotton is already a name brand and a political heavyweight who could upstage Trump if chosen – and use his running mate slot to launch a 2028 presidential campaign. 

Byron Donalds

• As one of the few Black conservatives in Congress, Donalds would be a historic choice at a time when the GOP is regularly accused of embracing anti-diversity policies. 
• Donalds emerged as an influential voice among the House’s more stringent conservative members after twice being nominated as an alternative to Rep. Kevin McCarthy during a fight over the speaker’s seat in January 2023. 
• The Florida congressman doesn’t back down from a fight in the face of liberal attacks, which appeals to Trump's political persona. That also could be turned into an asset in a debate joust with Vice President Kamala Harris. 
• Donalds represents a Florida district that is roughly 6% Black, creating questions over whether he can deliver minority voters for Trump. 
• A two-term congressman, Donalds is more of a show horse known for his TV appearances than legislative heavy lifting. He isn’t in the GOP leadership pipeline, and he didn’t have much leadership experience during his four years as a Florida state legislator, either. 
• Donalds and Trump are both from Florida, which means that under the U.S. Constitution one of them would have to move to collect the state’s electoral votes. If Donalds does so, he would have to leave Congress. 

Tulsi Gabbard

By Jeremy Yurow/USA TODAY Network 

• Gabbard could expand Trump’s base. At 43, she’s a woman of color who could appeal to younger and non-white voters. As a former Democrat, she also could attract independent voters.  
• Her military service and foreign policy experience bolster her credentials in areas where Trump has faced criticism. Trump has not served in the armed forces, and he had no political experience before his 2016 presidential bid.  
• Her willingness to break from her former party mirror Trump's outsider approach, potentially appealing to voters disillusioned with traditional party politics. 
• Gabbard would almost certainly face criticism for her progressive track record in Congress and previous endorsements of Sen. Bernie Sanders and President Joe Biden. Many could view her recent political shift as opportunism.  
• Gabbard is relatively inexperienced compared to other politicians Trump could choose as his running mate.
• Gabbard would face increased scrutiny for her history of spreading conspiracy theories and pro-Russia talking points, something Trump's critics have also accused him of doing.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders

By George Russell/USA TODAY NETWORK

• Sanders is a road-tested loyalist – she fiercely defended Trump for years as his White House press secretary.  
• A mother of three, Sanders has sought to connect the GOP vision with the values of working families and could help Trump court more moderate and undecided female voters. 
• She has strong name recognition and MAGA bona fides from the years she spent publicly connected to Trump on the national stage. 
• Sanders holds little governing experience. She is not even halfway through her first term in elected office as Arkansas governor. 
• A recent scandal over potential mishandling of government funds in the purchase of a $19,000 podium has left Sanders with some baggage that could come back to haunt her on the campaign trail. 
• Arkansas is guaranteed to vote Republican in 2024, so Trump doesn't need Sanders to win the state.

By Ron Hansen/Arizona Republic 

• The former TV newscaster has shown unflinching loyalty to Trump for years in the political arena. She describes herself as “Trump in heels,” and his supporters react to her as such. 
• As a woman, Lake adds a measure of gender diversity, which could help Trump attract female voters.
• She is generally liked by religious conservatives, who are a key part of the GOP base.  
• Lake is also running in a tight race for an open U.S. Senate seat in Arizona that Republicans are hoping to pick up in 2024.
• She has a penchant for gaffes and often diverges from her political message to dwell on her contempt for the media. 
• Lake’s election denialism has included a failed insistence in legal battles that she is the rightful winner of the governor’s race in 2022, undermining her credibility with some voters. 

By Savannah Moss/Greenville News 

• Mace has supported Trump in the past and has worked as a coalition director and field director for his campaign. In 2024, Mace endorsed Trump over former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, despite supporting Haley in the past. 
• Mace has toed the line between being a more traditional conservative voice in Congress and embracing the MAGA movement. Her political adaptability could help Trump target his message to moderate voters, particularly suburban women.  
• She has taken a more centrist stance on abortion access than much of the Republican Party, and she notably made headlines as a state legislator in 2019 for forcing colleagues to add exceptions for rape and incest into a South Carolina abortion law 
• Trump and Mace have a complicated history after he endorsed Katie Arrington, Mace’s challenger, in her reelection campaign in 2022. He called her “crazy” and a “terrible person” during a rally in South Carolina. 
• Mace condemned Trump after the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol, saying she wanted to see him held accountable. However, the two have been publicly supportive in recent years.
• Mace has been less focused on legislative accomplishments than some of her colleagues during her time in Congress and ex-staffers have alleged that she's looking for national attention.

Kristi Noem

By Shelly Conlon/Argus Leader 

• Noem has a long history of supporting Trump. She cast doubt on the validity of his loss to Biden in the 2020 election and gave the ex-president an early endorsement in 2024.  
• Unlike other VP contenders, Noem has political experience on the national and state level. She served four terms in the U.S. House of Representatives before running for the position she now holds: South Dakota’s governor. 
• As governor, she guided the state through the pandemic without statewide closures or shutdowns for most of COVID-19 and established a track record of conservative policy achievements.  
• In her recent autobiography, Noem included a passage about her decision to shoot a 14-month-old, disobedient hunting dog named Cricket as an example of her leadership skills. The story was widely viewed as a death-knell for her VP chances.  
• The book also bruised Noem’s credibility, after a series of anecdotes were questioned related to her relationship with foreign leaders such as North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un and French President Emanuel Macron .  
• She has faced allegations of abuse of power, including an investigation into whether her daughter, Kassidy Peters, received preferential treatment as she tried to get a real estate appraiser’s license. 

Vivek Ramaswamy

By Karissa Waddick/USA TODAY

• At just 38 years old, Ramaswamy would bring a youthful energy to the Trump campaign during an election year where age is a major concern for voters.  
• The former biotech entrepreneur is estimated to have a net worth of close to a billion dollars.
• Trump said Ramaswamy performed well in the GOP primary debates. The ex-president could view him as an asset in a sparring match with Vice President Kamala Harris.  
• Ramaswamy has cast himself as a MAGA 2.0 conservative, which may make it more difficult for Trump to wrangle support from moderate and swing voters. 
• He has no political or governing experience.  
• His history of promoting conspiracy theories would open him up to Democratic attacks. 

Marco Rubio

By Zac Anderson/USA TODAY

• A fluent Spanish speaker, Rubio could help Trump reach Hispanic voters who increasingly are trending Republican.  
• Rubio was a darling of the GOP establishment when he ran for president in 2016 and still appeals to many traditional Republicans, which could help Trump win over voters who have cast ballots for Nikki Haley in the primary. 
• Rubio’s considerable foreign policy experience could be an asset in an election where conflicts in Ukraine and Israel will be front and center 
• Because both Trump and Rubio live in Florida, under the U.S. Constitution the state’s GOP delegates can’t vote for them both. That means Rubio likely would have to move. Trump has mentioned this as a concern. 
• Some in Trump’s MAGA base still are suspicious of Rubio because of his past support for comprehensive immigration reform and nasty 2016 primary fight with Trump. 
• Florida isn’t considered a battleground state anymore, so selecting the senator wouldn’t help Trump carry a key swing state. 
• Among the only Black conservative lawmakers in Congress, Scott could help boost support for Trump’s campaign among diverse voting blocs. He launched a multimillion effort to convince Black and Latino voters to join the GOP earlier this year. 
• Although Scott has criticized Trump in the past, he has become a steadfast surrogate after dropping out of the 2024 Republican presidential race 
• He is a devout Christian, which could help Trump shore up support among the Republican Party’s evangelical base.  
• Scott’s low-key performances in the GOP presidential debates could draw concern about his ability to hold his own in a match up against Vice President Kamala Harris. 
• His 2024 campaign for the GOP presidential nomination was built on a message of hope, which runs counter to Trump’s campaign rhetoric that America is in decline.  
• Scott’s home state of South Carolina is not a general election battleground. 

Elise Stefanik

By Ken Tran/USA TODAY

• Stefanik has become a GOP superstar, and her candidacy as a 39-year-old woman could help the party reach female voters.
• As a House Republican leader, she has cultivated deep relationships with many lawmakers that could be a big help to rally support for a Trump White House’s agenda. 
• She has a proven ability to adapt at a moment's notice, a key skill for anyone working under the famously unpredictable Trump.  
• New York is still a deep blue state, and her presence on the ticket wouldn’t automatically help Trump reach voters in more consequential states.  
• Early on in her career, she rebuked Trump’s rhetoric and even voted against his signature 2017 tax cuts. 
• Trump might see her as a better fit to stay in the House as one of his liaisons on Capitol Hill. She hasn’t ruled out running for speaker. 

Marjorie Taylor Greene

By Maya Homan/USA TODAY

• Greene is one of Trump’s most fervent supporters in Congress. She would be a staunch ally on key issues, including abortion restrictions, immigration and gun rights. 
• She could help Trump appeal to female voters, a critical voting demographic he will need in the 2024 race. At age 50, she could help counterbalance concerns about the 78-year-old Trump. 
• Adding Greene to the ticket could help Trump carry Georgia, a key swing state that ultimately voted for Biden in the 2020 presidential election. She represents a district in the northwest corner of the state.  
• Greene is politically inexperienced and hasn't garnered a reputation for working on legislation. During her four years in Congress, Greene has yet to successfully pass a single bill into law.  
• If Trump regains the presidency, one of his most important relationships will be with House Republicans, many of whom Greene has publicly sparred with or antagonized during her two terms.  
• Her status as a MAGA Republican will be a challenge as Trump tries to secure moderate voters. 

By Haley BeMiller/Columbus Dispatch 

• Vance is one of Trump’s staunchest defenders. He often appears on mainstream media outlets – particularly CNN – to praise Trump and attack his opponents. 
• He is well-spoken and articulates the MAGA message in a persuasive way, which could serve him well in a debate with Vice President Kamala Harris. 
• Vance outlined his rags to riches story in his memoir “Hillbilly Elegy” which could be compelling to swing voters. The memoir also increased his national profile. 
• Vance is from Ohio, which is no longer considered a presidential battleground. Trump won the state in 2016 and 2020, and doesn’t need a VP nominee to make inroads with voters there.
• While Vance is young, he’s also another white man. He won’t necessarily help the Trump ticket appeal to Black or female voters.
• Vance was just elected to the Senate in 2022 and had no prior political experience.   

Glenn Youngkin

By Savannah Kuchar - Elizabeth Beyer /USA TODAY

• Youngkin has his own money – he amassed a small fortune and was called “one of the nation’s richest politicians” by Forbes after he won his 2021 election.  
• His 2021 victory in Virginia was somewhat of a surprise in a blue-trending state, and the governor has said it is “up for grabs” for Republicans in November.  
• Youngkin’s nice guy persona would balance Trump’s more inflammatory approach, but the governor has also bolstered his image as a conservative fighter. He has issued the most vetoes of any Virgina governor in history.  
• Trump and Youngkin have kept each other at arms length. Youngkin was able to keep the former president out of the commonwealth during his off-year 2021 campaign for governor.  
• Youngkin campaigned heavily on behalf of Republicans in state-level races in 2023, but his party failed to take back the state Senate or flip the House of Delegates. 
• Youngkin’s term as governor ends in January 2026. If he were on the ticket as VP and Trump wins, Youngkin would have to step down from his state office.  

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• ScientificWorldJournal
• v.2024; 2024
• PMC10807936

Writing a Scientific Review Article: Comprehensive Insights for Beginners

Ayodeji amobonye.

1 Department of Biotechnology and Food Science, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Durban University of Technology, P.O. Box 1334, KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4000, South Africa

2 Writing Centre, Durban University of Technology, P.O. Box 1334 KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4000, South Africa

Japareng Lalung

3 School of Industrial Technology, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Gelugor 11800, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia

Santhosh Pillai

Associated data.

The data and materials that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Review articles present comprehensive overview of relevant literature on specific themes and synthesise the studies related to these themes, with the aim of strengthening the foundation of knowledge and facilitating theory development. The significance of review articles in science is immeasurable as both students and researchers rely on these articles as the starting point for their research. Interestingly, many postgraduate students are expected to write review articles for journal publications as a way of demonstrating their ability to contribute to new knowledge in their respective fields. However, there is no comprehensive instructional framework to guide them on how to analyse and synthesise the literature in their niches into publishable review articles. The dearth of ample guidance or explicit training results in students having to learn all by themselves, usually by trial and error, which often leads to high rejection rates from publishing houses. Therefore, this article seeks to identify these challenges from a beginner's perspective and strives to plug the identified gaps and discrepancies. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to serve as a systematic guide for emerging scientists and to summarise the most important information on how to write and structure a publishable review article.

1. Introduction

Early scientists, spanning from the Ancient Egyptian civilization to the Scientific Revolution of the 16 th /17 th century, based their research on intuitions, personal observations, and personal insights. Thus, less time was spent on background reading as there was not much literature to refer to. This is well illustrated in the case of Sir Isaac Newton's apple tree and the theory of gravity, as well as Gregor Mendel's pea plants and the theory of inheritance. However, with the astronomical expansion in scientific knowledge and the emergence of the information age in the last century, new ideas are now being built on previously published works, thus the periodic need to appraise the huge amount of already published literature [ 1 ]. According to Birkle et al. [ 2 ], the Web of Science—an authoritative database of research publications and citations—covered more than 80 million scholarly materials. Hence, a critical review of prior and relevant literature is indispensable for any research endeavour as it provides the necessary framework needed for synthesising new knowledge and for highlighting new insights and perspectives [ 3 ].

Review papers are generally considered secondary research publications that sum up already existing works on a particular research topic or question and relate them to the current status of the topic. This makes review articles distinctly different from scientific research papers. While the primary aim of the latter is to develop new arguments by reporting original research, the former is focused on summarising and synthesising previous ideas, studies, and arguments, without adding new experimental contributions. Review articles basically describe the content and quality of knowledge that are currently available, with a special focus on the significance of the previous works. To this end, a review article cannot simply reiterate a subject matter, but it must contribute to the field of knowledge by synthesising available materials and offering a scholarly critique of theory [ 4 ]. Typically, these articles critically analyse both quantitative and qualitative studies by scrutinising experimental results, the discussion of the experimental data, and in some instances, previous review articles to propose new working theories. Thus, a review article is more than a mere exhaustive compilation of all that has been published on a topic; it must be a balanced, informative, perspective, and unbiased compendium of previous studies which may also include contrasting findings, inconsistencies, and conventional and current views on the subject [ 5 ].

Hence, the essence of a review article is measured by what is achieved, what is discovered, and how information is communicated to the reader [ 6 ]. According to Steward [ 7 ], a good literature review should be analytical, critical, comprehensive, selective, relevant, synthetic, and fully referenced. On the other hand, a review article is considered to be inadequate if it is lacking in focus or outcome, overgeneralised, opinionated, unbalanced, and uncritical [ 7 ]. Most review papers fail to meet these standards and thus can be viewed as mere summaries of previous works in a particular field of study. In one of the few studies that assessed the quality of review articles, none of the 50 papers that were analysed met the predefined criteria for a good review [ 8 ]. However, beginners must also realise that there is no bad writing in the true sense; there is only writing in evolution and under refinement. Literally, every piece of writing can be improved upon, right from the first draft until the final published manuscript. Hence, a paper can only be referred to as bad and unfixable when the author is not open to corrections or when the writer gives up on it.

According to Peat et al. [ 9 ], “everything is easy when you know how,” a maxim which applies to scientific writing in general and review writing in particular. In this regard, the authors emphasized that the writer should be open to learning and should also follow established rules instead of following a blind trial-and-error approach. In contrast to the popular belief that review articles should only be written by experienced scientists and researchers, recent trends have shown that many early-career scientists, especially postgraduate students, are currently expected to write review articles during the course of their studies. However, these scholars have little or no access to formal training on how to analyse and synthesise the research literature in their respective fields [ 10 ]. Consequently, students seeking guidance on how to write or improve their literature reviews are less likely to find published works on the subject, particularly in the science fields. Although various publications have dealt with the challenges of searching for literature, or writing literature reviews for dissertation/thesis purposes, there is little or no information on how to write a comprehensive review article for publication. In addition to the paucity of published information to guide the potential author, the lack of understanding of what constitutes a review paper compounds their challenges. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to serve as a guide for writing review papers for journal publishing. This work draws on the experience of the authors to assist early-career scientists/researchers in the “hard skill” of authoring review articles. Even though there is no single path to writing scientifically, or to writing reviews in particular, this paper attempts to simplify the process by looking at this subject from a beginner's perspective. Hence, this paper highlights the differences between the types of review articles in the sciences while also explaining the needs and purpose of writing review articles. Furthermore, it presents details on how to search for the literature as well as how to structure the manuscript to produce logical and coherent outputs. It is hoped that this work will ease prospective scientific writers into the challenging but rewarding art of writing review articles.

2. Benefits of Review Articles to the Author

Analysing literature gives an overview of the “WHs”: WHat has been reported in a particular field or topic, WHo the key writers are, WHat are the prevailing theories and hypotheses, WHat questions are being asked (and answered), and WHat methods and methodologies are appropriate and useful [ 11 ]. For new or aspiring researchers in a particular field, it can be quite challenging to get a comprehensive overview of their respective fields, especially the historical trends and what has been studied previously. As such, the importance of review articles to knowledge appraisal and contribution cannot be overemphasised, which is reflected in the constant demand for such articles in the research community. However, it is also important for the author, especially the first-time author, to recognise the importance of his/her investing time and effort into writing a quality review article.

Generally, literature reviews are undertaken for many reasons, mainly for publication and for dissertation purposes. The major purpose of literature reviews is to provide direction and information for the improvement of scientific knowledge. They also form a significant component in the research process and in academic assessment [ 12 ]. There may be, however, a thin line between a dissertation literature review and a published review article, given that with some modifications, a literature review can be transformed into a legitimate and publishable scholarly document. According to Gülpınar and Güçlü [ 6 ], the basic motivation for writing a review article is to make a comprehensive synthesis of the most appropriate literature on a specific research inquiry or topic. Thus, conducting a literature review assists in demonstrating the author's knowledge about a particular field of study, which may include but not be limited to its history, theories, key variables, vocabulary, phenomena, and methodologies [ 10 ]. Furthermore, publishing reviews is beneficial as it permits the researchers to examine different questions and, as a result, enhances the depth and diversity of their scientific reasoning [ 1 ]. In addition, writing review articles allows researchers to share insights with the scientific community while identifying knowledge gaps to be addressed in future research. The review writing process can also be a useful tool in training early-career scientists in leadership, coordination, project management, and other important soft skills necessary for success in the research world [ 13 ]. Another important reason for authoring reviews is that such publications have been observed to be remarkably influential, extending the reach of an author in multiple folds of what can be achieved by primary research papers [ 1 ]. The trend in science is for authors to receive more citations from their review articles than from their original research articles. According to Miranda and Garcia-Carpintero [ 14 ], review articles are, on average, three times more frequently cited than original research articles; they also asserted that a 20% increase in review authorship could result in a 40–80% increase in citations of the author. As a result, writing reviews can significantly impact a researcher's citation output and serve as a valuable channel to reach a wider scientific audience. In addition, the references cited in a review article also provide the reader with an opportunity to dig deeper into the topic of interest. Thus, review articles can serve as a valuable repository for consultation, increasing the visibility of the authors and resulting in more citations.

3. Types of Review Articles

The first step in writing a good literature review is to decide on the particular type of review to be written; hence, it is important to distinguish and understand the various types of review articles. Although scientific review articles have been classified according to various schemes, however, they are broadly categorised into narrative reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses [ 15 ]. It was observed that more authors—as well as publishers—were leaning towards systematic reviews and meta-analysis while downplaying narrative reviews; however, the three serve different aims and should all be considered equally important in science [ 1 ]. Bibliometric reviews and patent reviews, which are closely related to meta-analysis, have also gained significant attention recently. However, from another angle, a review could also be of two types. In the first class, authors could deal with a widely studied topic where there is already an accumulated body of knowledge that requires analysis and synthesis [ 3 ]. At the other end of the spectrum, the authors may have to address an emerging issue that would benefit from exposure to potential theoretical foundations; hence, their contribution would arise from the fresh theoretical foundations proposed in developing a conceptual model [ 3 ].

3.1. Narrative Reviews

Narrative reviewers are mainly focused on providing clarification and critical analysis on a particular topic or body of literature through interpretative synthesis, creativity, and expert judgement. According to Green et al. [ 16 ], a narrative review can be in the form of editorials, commentaries, and narrative overviews. However, editorials and commentaries are usually expert opinions; hence, a beginner is more likely to write a narrative overview, which is more general and is also referred to as an unsystematic narrative review. Similarly, the literature review section of most dissertations and empirical papers is typically narrative in nature. Typically, narrative reviews combine results from studies that may have different methodologies to address different questions or to formulate a broad theoretical formulation [ 1 ]. They are largely integrative as strong focus is placed on the assimilation and synthesis of various aspects in the review, which may involve comparing and contrasting research findings or deriving structured implications [ 17 ]. In addition, they are also qualitative studies because they do not follow strict selection processes; hence, choosing publications is relatively more subjective and unsystematic [ 18 ]. However, despite their popularity, there are concerns about their inherent subjectivity. In many instances, when the supporting data for narrative reviews are examined more closely, the evaluations provided by the author(s) become quite questionable [ 19 ]. Nevertheless, if the goal of the author is to formulate a new theory that connects diverse strands of research, a narrative method is most appropriate.

3.2. Systematic Reviews

In contrast to narrative reviews, which are generally descriptive, systematic reviews employ a systematic approach to summarise evidence on research questions. Hence, systematic reviews make use of precise and rigorous criteria to identify, evaluate, and subsequently synthesise all relevant literature on a particular topic [ 12 , 20 ]. As a result, systematic reviews are more likely to inspire research ideas by identifying knowledge gaps or inconsistencies, thus helping the researcher to clearly define the research hypotheses or questions [ 21 ]. Furthermore, systematic reviews may serve as independent research projects in their own right, as they follow a defined methodology to search and combine reliable results to synthesise a new database that can be used for a variety of purposes [ 22 ]. Typically, the peculiarities of the individual reviewer, different search engines, and information databases used all ensure that no two searches will yield the same systematic results even if the searches are conducted simultaneously and under identical criteria [ 11 ]. Hence, attempts are made at standardising the exercise via specific methods that would limit bias and chance effects, prevent duplications, and provide more accurate results upon which conclusions and decisions can be made.

The most established of these methods is the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines which objectively defined statements, guidelines, reporting checklists, and flowcharts for undertaking systematic reviews as well as meta-analysis [ 23 ]. Though mainly designed for research in medical sciences, the PRISMA approach has gained wide acceptance in other fields of science and is based on eight fundamental propositions. These include the explicit definition of the review question, an unambiguous outline of the study protocol, an objective and exhaustive systematic review of reputable literature, and an unambiguous identification of included literature based on defined selection criteria [ 24 ]. Other considerations include an unbiased appraisal of the quality of the selected studies (literature), organic synthesis of the evidence of the study, preparation of the manuscript based on the reporting guidelines, and periodic update of the review as new data emerge [ 24 ]. Other methods such as PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols), MOOSE (Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology), and ROSES (Reporting Standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses) have since been developed for systematic reviews (and meta-analysis), with most of them being derived from PRISMA.

Consequently, systematic reviews—unlike narrative reviews—must contain a methodology section which in addition to all that was highlighted above must fully describe the precise criteria used in formulating the research question and setting the inclusion or exclusion criteria used in selecting/accessing the literature. Similarly, the criteria for evaluating the quality of the literature included in the review as well as for analysing, synthesising, and disseminating the findings must be fully described in the methodology section.

3.3. Meta-Analysis

Meta-analyses are considered as more specialised forms of systematic reviews. Generally, they combine the results of many studies that use similar or closely related methods to address the same question or share a common quantitative evaluation method [ 25 ]. However, meta-analyses are also a step higher than other systematic reviews as they are focused on numerical data and involve the use of statistics in evaluating different studies and synthesising new knowledge. The major advantage of this type of review is the increased statistical power leading to more reliable results for inferring modest associations and a more comprehensive understanding of the true impact of a research study [ 26 ]. Unlike in traditional systematic reviews, research topics covered in meta-analyses must be mature enough to allow the inclusion of sufficient homogeneous empirical research in terms of subjects, interventions, and outcomes [ 27 , 28 ].

Being an advanced form of systematic review, meta-analyses must also have a distinct methodology section; hence, the standard procedures involved in the traditional systematic review (especially PRISMA) also apply in meta-analyses [ 23 ]. In addition to the common steps in formulating systematic reviews, meta-analyses are required to describe how nested and missing data are handled, the effect observed in each study, the confidence interval associated with each synthesised effect, and any potential for bias presented within the sample(s) [ 17 ]. According to Paul and Barari [ 28 ], a meta-analysis must also detail the final sample, the meta-analytic model, and the overall analysis, moderator analysis, and software employed. While the overall analysis involves the statistical characterization of the relationships between variables in the meta-analytic framework and their significance, the moderator analysis defines the different variables that may affect variations in the original studies [ 28 , 29 ]. It must also be noted that the accuracy and reliability of meta-analyses have both been significantly enhanced by the incorporation of statistical approaches such as Bayesian analysis [ 30 ], network analysis [ 31 ], and more recently, machine learning [ 32 ].

3.4. Bibliometric Review

A bibliometric review, commonly referred to as bibliometric analysis, is a systematic evaluation of published works within a specific field or discipline [ 33 ]. This bibliometric methodology involves the use of quantitative methods to analyse bibliometric data such as the characteristics and numbers of publications, units of citations, authorship, co-authorship, and journal impact factors [ 34 ]. Academics use bibliometric analysis with different objectives in mind, which includes uncovering emerging trends in article and journal performance, elaborating collaboration patterns and research constituents, evaluating the impact and influence of particular authors, publications, or research groups, and highlighting the intellectual framework of a certain field [ 35 ]. It is also used to inform policy and decision-making. Similarly to meta-analysis, bibliometric reviews rely upon quantitative techniques, thus avoiding the interpretation bias that could arise from the qualitative techniques of other types of reviews [ 36 ]. However, while bibliometric analysis synthesises the bibliometric and intellectual structure of a field by examining the social and structural linkages between various research parts, meta-analysis focuses on summarising empirical evidence by probing the direction and strength of effects and relationships among variables, especially in open research questions [ 37 , 38 ]. However, similarly to systematic review and meta-analysis, a bibliometric review also requires a well-detailed methodology section. The amount of data to be analysed in bibliometric analysis is quite massive, running to hundreds and tens of thousands in some cases. Although the data are objective in nature (e.g., number of citations and publications and occurrences of keywords and topics), the interpretation is usually carried out through both objective (e.g., performance analysis) and subjective (e.g., thematic analysis) evaluations [ 35 ]. However, the invention and availability of bibliometric software such as BibExcel, Gephi, Leximancer, and VOSviewer and scientific databases such as Dimensions, Web of Science, and Scopus have made this type of analysis more feasible.

3.5. Patent Review

Patent reviews provide a comprehensive analysis and critique of a specific patent or a group of related patents, thus presenting a concise understanding of the technology or innovation that is covered by the patent [ 39 ]. This type of article is useful for researchers as it also enhances their understanding of the legal, technical, and commercial aspects of an intellectual property/innovation; in addition, it is also important for stakeholders outside the research community including IP (intellectual property) specialists, legal professionals, and technology-transfer officers [ 40 ]. Typically, patent reviews encompass the scope, background, claims, legal implications, technical specifications, and potential commercial applications of the patent(s). The article may also include a discussion of the patent's strengths and weaknesses, as well as its potential impact on the industry or field in which it operates. Most times, reviews are time specified, they may be regionalised, and the data are usually retrieved via patent searches on databases such as that of the European Patent Office ( https://www.epo.org/searching.html ), United States Patent and Trademark Office ( https://patft.uspto.gov/ ), the World Intellectual Property Organization's PATENTSCOPE ( https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/structuredSearch.jsf ), Google Patent ( https://www.google.com/?tbm=pts ), and China National Intellectual Property Administration ( https://pss-system.cponline.cnipa.gov.cn/conventionalSearch ). According to Cerimi et al. [ 41 ], the retrieved data and analysed may include the patent number, patent status, filing date, application date, grant dates, inventor, assignee, and pending applications. While data analysis is usually carried out by general data software such as Microsoft Excel, an intelligence software solely dedicated to patent research and analysis, Orbit Intelligence has been found to be more efficient [ 39 ]. It is also mandatory to include a methodology section in a patent review, and this should be explicit, thorough, and precise to allow a clear understanding of how the analysis was carried out and how the conclusions were arrived at.

4. Searching Literature

One of the most challenging tasks in writing a review article on a subject is the search for relevant literature to populate the manuscript as the author is required to garner information from an endless number of sources. This is even more challenging as research outputs have been increasing astronomically, especially in the last decade, with thousands of new articles published annually in various fields. It is therefore imperative that the author must not only be aware of the overall trajectory in a field of investigation but must also be cognizant of recent studies so as not to publish outdated research or review articles. Basically, the search for the literature involves a coherent conceptual structuring of the topic itself and a thorough collation of evidence under the common themes which might reflect the histories, conflicts, standoffs, revolutions, and/or evolutions in the field [ 7 ]. To start the search process, the author must carefully identify and select broad keywords relevant to the subject; subsequently, the keywords should be developed to refine the search into specific subheadings that would facilitate the structure of the review.

Two main tactics have been identified for searching the literature, namely, systematic and snowballing [ 42 ]. The systematic approach involves searching literature with specific keywords (for example, cancer, antioxidant, and nanoparticles), which leads to an almost unmanageable and overwhelming list of possible sources [ 43 ]. The snowballing approach, however, involves the identification of a particular publication, followed by the compilation of a bibliography of articles based on the reference list of the identified publication [ 44 ]. Many times, it might be necessary to combine both approaches, but irrespective, the author must keep an accurate track and record of papers cited in the search. A simple and efficient strategy for populating the bibliography of review articles is to go through the abstract (and sometimes the conclusion) of a paper; if the abstract is related to the topic of discourse, the author might go ahead and read the entire article; otherwise, he/she is advised to move on [ 45 ]. Winchester and Salji [ 5 ] noted that to learn the background of the subject/topic to be reviewed, starting literature searches with academic textbooks or published review articles is imperative, especially for beginners. Furthermore, it would also assist in compiling the list of keywords, identifying areas of further exploration, and providing a glimpse of the current state of the research. However, past reviews ideally are not to serve as the foundation of a new review as they are written from someone else's viewpoint, which might have been tainted with some bias. Fortunately, the accessibility and search for the literature have been made relatively easier than they were a few decades ago as the current information age has placed an enormous volume of knowledge right at our fingertips [ 46 ]. Nevertheless, when gathering the literature from the Internet, authors should exercise utmost caution as much of the information may not be verified or peer-reviewed and thus may be unregulated and unreliable. For instance, Wikipedia, despite being a large repository of information with more than 6.7 million articles in the English language alone, is considered unreliable for scientific literature reviews, due to its openness to public editing [ 47 ]. However, in addition to peer-reviewed journal publications—which are most ideal—reviews can also be drawn from a wide range of other sources such as technical documents, in-house reports, conference abstracts, and conference proceedings. Similarly, “Google Scholar”—as against “Google” and other general search engines—is more appropriate as its searches are restricted to only academic articles produced by scholarly societies or/and publishers [ 48 ]. Furthermore, the various electronic databases, such as ScienceDirect, Web of Science, PubMed, and MEDLINE, many of which focus on specific fields of research, are also ideal options [ 49 ]. Advancement in computer indexing has remarkably expanded the ease and ability to search large databases for every potentially relevant article. In addition to searching by topic, literature search can be modified by time; however, there must be a balance between old papers and recent ones. The general consensus in science is that publications less than five years old are considered recent.

It is important, especially in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, that the specific method of running the computer searches be properly documented as there is the need to include this in the method (methodology) section of such papers. Typically, the method details the keywords, databases explored, search terms used, and the inclusion/exclusion criteria applied in the selection of data and any other specific decision/criteria. All of these will ensure the reproducibility and thoroughness of the search and the selection procedure. However, Randolph [ 10 ] noted that Internet searches might not give the exhaustive list of articles needed for a review article; hence, it is advised that authors search through the reference lists of articles that were obtained initially from the Internet search. After determining the relevant articles from the list, the author should read through the references of these articles and repeat the cycle until saturation is reached [ 10 ]. After populating the articles needed for the literature review, the next step is to analyse them individually and in their whole entirety. A systematic approach to this is to identify the key information within the papers, examine them in depth, and synthesise original perspectives by integrating the information and making inferences based on the findings. In this regard, it is imperative to link one source to the other in a logical manner, for instance, taking note of studies with similar methodologies, papers that agree, or results that are contradictory [ 42 ].

5. Structuring the Review Article

The title and abstract are the main selling points of a review article, as most readers will only peruse these two elements and usually go on to read the full paper if they are drawn in by either or both of the two. Tullu [ 50 ] recommends that the title of a scientific paper “should be descriptive, direct, accurate, appropriate, interesting, concise, precise, unique, and not be misleading.” In addition to providing “just enough details” to entice the reader, words in the titles are also used by electronic databases, journal websites, and search engines to index and retrieve a particular paper during a search [ 51 ]. Titles are of different types and must be chosen according to the topic under review. They are generally classified as descriptive, declarative, or interrogative and can also be grouped into compound, nominal, or full-sentence titles [ 50 ]. The subject of these categorisations has been extensively discussed in many articles; however, the reader must also be aware of the compound titles, which usually contain a main title and a subtitle. Typically, subtitles provide additional context—to the main title—and they may specify the geographic scope of the research, research methodology, or sample size [ 52 ].

Just like primary research articles, there are many debates about the optimum length of a review article's title. However, the general consensus is to keep the title as brief as possible while not being too general. A title length between 10 and 15 words is recommended, since longer titles can be more challenging to comprehend. Paiva et al. [ 53 ] observed that articles which contain 95 characters or less get more views and citations. However, emphasis must be placed on conciseness as the audience will be more satisfied if they can understand what exactly the review has contributed to the field, rather than just a hint about the general topic area. Authors should also endeavour to stick to the journal's specific requirements, especially regarding the length of the title and what they should or should not contain [ 9 ]. Thus, avoidance of filler words such as “a review on/of,” “an observation of,” or “a study of” is a very simple way to limit title length. In addition, abbreviations or acronyms should be avoided in the title, except the standard or commonly interpreted ones such as AIDS, DNA, HIV, and RNA. In summary, to write an effective title, the authors should consider the following points. What is the paper about? What was the methodology used? What were the highlights and major conclusions? Subsequently, the author should list all the keywords from these answers, construct a sentence from these keywords, and finally delete all redundant words from the sentence title. It is also possible to gain some ideas by scanning indices and article titles in major journals in the field. It is important to emphasise that a title is not chosen and set in stone, and the title is most likely to be continually revised and adjusted until the end of the writing process.

5.2. Abstract

The abstract, also referred to as the synopsis, is a summary of the full research paper; it is typically independent and can stand alone. For most readers, a publication does not exist beyond the abstract, partly because abstracts are often the only section of a paper that is made available to the readers at no cost, whereas the full paper may attract a payment or subscription [ 54 ]. Thus, the abstract is supposed to set the tone for the few readers who wish to read the rest of the paper. It has also been noted that the abstract gives the first impression of a research work to journal editors, conference scientific committees, or referees, who might outright reject the paper if the abstract is poorly written or inadequate [ 50 ]. Hence, it is imperative that the abstract succinctly represents the entire paper and projects it positively. Just like the title, abstracts have to be balanced, comprehensive, concise, functional, independent, precise, scholarly, and unbiased and not be misleading [ 55 ]. Basically, the abstract should be formulated using keywords from all the sections of the main manuscript. Thus, it is pertinent that the abstract conveys the focus, key message, rationale, and novelty of the paper without any compromise or exaggeration. Furthermore, the abstract must be consistent with the rest of the paper; as basic as this instruction might sound, it is not to be taken for granted. For example, a study by Vrijhoef and Steuten [ 56 ] revealed that 18–68% of 264 abstracts from some scientific journals contained information that was inconsistent with the main body of the publications.

Abstracts can either be structured or unstructured; in addition, they can further be classified as either descriptive or informative. Unstructured abstracts, which are used by many scientific journals, are free flowing with no predefined subheadings, while structured abstracts have specific subheadings/subsections under which the abstract needs to be composed. Structured abstracts have been noted to be more informative and are usually divided into subsections which include the study background/introduction, objectives, methodology design, results, and conclusions [ 57 ]. No matter the style chosen, the author must carefully conform to the instructions provided by the potential journal of submission, which may include but are not limited to the format, font size/style, word limit, and subheadings [ 58 ]. The word limit for abstracts in most scientific journals is typically between 150 and 300 words. It is also a general rule that abstracts do not contain any references whatsoever.

Typically, an abstract should be written in the active voice, and there is no such thing as a perfect abstract as it could always be improved on. It is advised that the author first makes an initial draft which would contain all the essential parts of the paper, which could then be polished subsequently. The draft should begin with a brief background which would lead to the research questions. It might also include a general overview of the methodology used (if applicable) and importantly, the major results/observations/highlights of the review paper. The abstract should end with one or few sentences about any implications, perspectives, or future research that may be developed from the review exercise. Finally, the authors should eliminate redundant words and edit the abstract to the correct word count permitted by the journal [ 59 ]. It is always beneficial to read previous abstracts published in the intended journal, related topics/subjects from other journals, and other reputable sources. Furthermore, the author should endeavour to get feedback on the abstract especially from peers and co-authors. As the abstract is the face of the whole paper, it is best that it is the last section to be finalised, as by this time, the author would have developed a clearer understanding of the findings and conclusions of the entire paper.

5.3. Graphical Abstracts

Since the mid-2000s, an increasing number of journals now require authors to provide a graphical abstract (GA) in addition to the traditional written abstract, to increase the accessibility of scientific publications to readers [ 60 ]. A study showed that publications with GA performed better than those without it, when the abstract views, total citations, and downloads were compared [ 61 ]. However, the GA should provide “a single, concise pictorial, and visual summary of the main findings of an article” [ 62 ]. Although they are meant to be a stand-alone summary of the whole paper, it has been noted that they are not so easily comprehensible without having read through the traditionally written abstract [ 63 ]. It is important to note that, like traditional abstracts, many reputable journals require GAs to adhere to certain specifications such as colour, dimension, quality, file size, and file format (usually JPEG/JPG, PDF, PNG, or TIFF). In addition, it is imperative to use engaging and accurate figures, all of which must be synthesised in order to accurately reflect the key message of the paper. Currently, there are various online or downloadable graphical tools that can be used for creating GAs, such as Microsoft Paint or PowerPoint, Mindthegraph, ChemDraw, CorelDraw, and BioRender.

5.4. Keywords

As a standard practice, journals require authors to select 4–8 keywords (or phrases), which are typically listed below the abstract. A good set of keywords will enable indexers and search engines to find relevant papers more easily and can be considered as a very concise abstract [ 64 ]. According to Dewan and Gupta [ 51 ], the selection of appropriate keywords will significantly enhance the retrieval, accession, and consequently, the citation of the review paper. Ideally, keywords can be variants of the terms/phrases used in the title, the abstract, and the main text, but they should ideally not be the exact words in the main title. Choosing the most appropriate keywords for a review article involves listing down the key terms and phrases in the article, including abbreviations. Subsequently, a quick review of the glossary/vocabulary/term list or indexing standard in the specific discipline will assist in selecting the best and most precise keywords that match those used in the databases from the list drawn. In addition, the keywords should not be broad or general terms (e.g., DNA, biology, and enzymes) but must be specific to the field or subfield of study as well as to the particular paper [ 65 ].

5.5. Introduction

The introduction of an article is the first major section of the manuscript, and it presents basic information to the reader without compelling them to study past publications. In addition, the introduction directs the reader to the main arguments and points developed in the main body of the article while clarifying the current state of knowledge in that particular area of research [ 12 ]. The introduction part of a review article is usually sectionalised into background information, a description of the main topic and finally a statement of the main purpose of the review [ 66 ]. Authors may begin the introduction with brief general statements—which provide background knowledge on the subject matter—that lead to more specific ones [ 67 ]. It is at this point that the reader's attention must be caught as the background knowledge must highlight the importance and justification for the subject being discussed, while also identifying the major problem to be addressed [ 68 ]. In addition, the background should be broad enough to attract even nonspecialists in the field to maximise the impact and widen the reach of the article. All of these should be done in the light of current literature; however, old references may also be used for historical purposes. A very important aspect of the introduction is clearly stating and establishing the research problem(s) and how a review of the particular topic contributes to those problem(s). Thus, the research gap which the paper intends to fill, the limitations of previous works and past reviews, if available, and the new knowledge to be contributed must all be highlighted. Inadequate information and the inability to clarify the problem will keep readers (who have the desire to obtain new information) from reading beyond the introduction [ 69 ]. It is also pertinent that the author establishes the purpose of reviewing the literature and defines the scope as well as the major synthesised point of view. Furthermore, a brief insight into the criteria used to select, evaluate, and analyse the literature, as well as the outline or sequence of the review, should be provided in the introduction. Subsequently, the specific objectives of the review article must be presented. The last part of the “introduction” section should focus on the solution, the way forward, the recommendations, and the further areas of research as deduced from the whole review process. According to DeMaria [ 70 ], clearly expressed or recommended solutions to an explicitly revealed problem are very important for the wholesomeness of the “introduction” section. It is believed that following these steps will give readers the opportunity to track the problems and the corresponding solution from their own perspective in the light of current literature. As against some suggestions that the introduction should be written only in present tenses, it is also believed that it could be done with other tenses in addition to the present tense. In this regard, general facts should be written in the present tense, specific research/work should be in the past tense, while the concluding statement should be in the past perfect or simple past. Furthermore, many of the abbreviations to be used in the rest of the manuscript and their explanations should be defined in this section.

5.6. Methodology

Writing a review article is equivalent to conducting a research study, with the information gathered by the author (reviewer) representing the data. Like all major studies, it involves conceptualisation, planning, implementation, and dissemination [ 71 ], all of which may be detailed in a methodology section, if necessary. Hence, the methodological section of a review paper (which can also be referred to as the review protocol) details how the relevant literature was selected and how it was analysed as well as summarised. The selection details may include, but are not limited to, the database consulted and the specific search terms used together with the inclusion/exclusion criteria. As earlier highlighted in Section 3 , a description of the methodology is required for all types of reviews except for narrative reviews. This is partly because unlike narrative reviews, all other review articles follow systematic approaches which must ensure significant reproducibility [ 72 ]. Therefore, where necessary, the methods of data extraction from the literature and data synthesis must also be highlighted as well. In some cases, it is important to show how data were combined by highlighting the statistical methods used, measures of effect, and tests performed, as well as demonstrating heterogeneity and publication bias [ 73 ].

The methodology should also detail the major databases consulted during the literature search, e.g., Dimensions, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and PubMed. For meta-analysis, it is imperative to highlight the software and/or package used, which could include Comprehensive Meta-Analysis, OpenMEE, Review Manager (RevMan), Stata, SAS, and R Studio. It is also necessary to state the mathematical methods used for the analysis; examples of these include the Bayesian analysis, the Mantel–Haenszel method, and the inverse variance method. The methodology should also state the number of authors that carried out the initial review stage of the study, as it has been recommended that at least two reviews should be done blindly and in parallel, especially when it comes to the acquisition and synthesis of data [ 74 ]. Finally, the quality and validity assessment of the publication used in the review must be stated and well clarified [ 73 ].

5.7. Main Body of the Review

Ideally, the main body of a publishable review should answer these questions: What is new (contribution)? Why so (logic)? So what (impact)? How well it is done (thoroughness)? The flow of the main body of a review article must be well organised to adequately maintain the attention of the readers as well as guide them through the section. It is recommended that the author should consider drawing a conceptual scheme of the main body first, using methods such as mind-mapping. This will help create a logical flow of thought and presentation, while also linking the various sections of the manuscript together. According to Moreira [ 75 ], “reports do not simply yield their findings, rather reviewers make them yield,” and thus, it is the author's responsibility to transform “resistant” texts into “docile” texts. Hence, after the search for the literature, the essential themes and key concepts of the review paper must be identified and synthesised together. This synthesis primarily involves creating hypotheses about the relationships between the concepts with the aim of increasing the understanding of the topic being reviewed. The important information from the various sources should not only be summarised, but the significance of studies must be related back to the initial question(s) posed by the review article. Furthermore, MacLure [ 76 ] stated that data are not just to be plainly “extracted intact” and “used exactly as extracted,” but must be modified, reconfigured, transformed, transposed, converted, tabulated, graphed, or manipulated to enable synthesis, combination, and comparison. Therefore, different pieces of information must be extracted from the reports in which they were previously deposited and then refined into the body of the new article [ 75 ]. To this end, adequate comparison and combination might require that “qualitative data be quantified” or/and “quantitative data may be qualitized” [ 77 ]. In order to accomplish all of these goals, the author may have to transform, paraphrase, generalize, specify, and reorder the text [ 78 ]. For comprehensiveness, the body paragraphs should be arranged in a similar order as it was initially stated in the abstract or/and introduction. Thus, the main body could be divided into thematic areas, each of which could be independently comprehensive and treated as a mini review. Similarly, the sections can also be arranged chronologically depending on the focus of the review. Furthermore, the abstractions should proceed from a wider general view of the literature being reviewed and then be narrowed down to the specifics. In the process, deep insights should also be provided between the topic of the review and the wider subject area, e.g., fungal enzymes and enzymes in general. The abstractions must also be discussed in more detail by presenting more specific information from the identified sources (with proper citations of course!). For example, it is important to identify and highlight contrary findings and rival interpretations as well as to point out areas of agreement or debate among different bodies of literature. Often, there are previous reviews on the same topic/concept; however, this does not prevent a new author from writing one on the same topic, especially if the previous reviews were written many years ago. However, it is important that the body of the new manuscript be written from a new angle that was not adequately covered in the past reviews and should also incorporate new studies that have accumulated since the last review(s). In addition, the new review might also highlight the approaches, limitations, and conclusions of the past studies. But the authors must not be excessively critical of the past reviews as this is regarded by many authors as a sign of poor professionalism [ 3 , 79 ]. Daft [ 79 ] emphasized that it is more important for a reviewer to state how their research builds on previous work instead of outright claiming that previous works are incompetent and inadequate. However, if a series of related papers on one topic have a common error or research flaw that needs rectification, the reviewer must point this out with the aim of moving the field forward [ 3 ]. Like every other scientific paper, the main body of a review article also needs to be consistent in style, for example, in the choice of passive vs. active voice and present vs. past tense. It is also important to note that tables and figures can serve as a powerful tool for highlighting key points in the body of the review, and they are now considered core elements of reviews. For more guidance and insights into what should make up the contents of a good review article, readers are also advised to get familiarised with the Boote and Beile [ 80 ] literature review scoring rubric as well as the review article checklist of Short [ 81 ].

5.8. Tables and Figures

An ideal review article should be logically structured and efficiently utilise illustrations, in the form of tables and figures, to convey the key findings and relationships in the study. According to Tay [ 13 ], illustrations often take a secondary role in review papers when compared to primary research papers which are focused on illustrations. However, illustrations are very important in review articles as they can serve as succinct means of communicating major findings and insights. Franzblau and Chung [ 82 ] pointed out that illustrations serve three major purposes in a scientific article: they simplify complex data and relationships for better understanding, they minimise reading time by summarising and bringing to focus on the key findings (or trends), and last, they help to reduce the overall word count. Hence, inserting and constructing illustrations in a review article is as meticulous as it is important. However, important decisions should be made on whether the charts, figures, or tables to be potentially inserted in the manuscript are indeed needed and how best to design them [ 83 ]. Illustrations should enhance the text while providing necessary information; thus, the information described in illustrations should not contradict that in the main text and should also not be a repetition of texts [ 84 ]. Furthermore, illustrations must be autonomous, meaning they ought to be intelligible without having to read the text portion of the manuscript; thus, the reader does not have to flip back and forth between the illustration and the main text in order to understand it [ 85 ]. It should be noted that tables or figures that directly reiterate the main text or contain extraneous information will only make a mess of the manuscript and discourage readers [ 86 ].

Kotz and Cals [ 87 ] recommend that the layout of tables and figures should be carefully designed in a clear manner with suitable layouts, which will allow them to be referred to logically and chronologically in the text. In addition, illustrations should only contain simple text, as lengthy details would contradict their initial objective, which was to provide simple examples or an overview. Furthermore, the use of abbreviations in illustrations, especially tables, should be avoided if possible. If not, the abbreviations should be defined explicitly in the footnotes or legends of the illustration [ 88 ]. Similarly, numerical values in tables and graphs should also be correctly approximated [ 84 ]. It is recommended that the number of tables and figures in the manuscript should not exceed the target journal's specification. According to Saver [ 89 ], they ideally should not account for more than one-third of the manuscript. Finally, the author(s) must seek permission and give credits for using an already published illustration when necessary. However, none of these are needed if the graphic is originally created by the author, but if it is a reproduced or an adapted illustration, the author must obtain permission from the copyright owner and include the necessary credit. One of the very important tools for designing illustrations is Creative Commons, a platform that provides a wide range of creative works which are available to the public for use and modification.

5.9. Conclusion/Future Perspectives

It has been observed that many reviews end abruptly with a short conclusion; however, a lot more can be included in this section in addition to what has been said in the major sections of the paper. Basically, the conclusion section of a review article should provide a summary of key findings from the main body of the manuscript. In this section, the author needs to revisit the critical points of the paper as well as highlight the accuracy, validity, and relevance of the inferences drawn in the article review. A good conclusion should highlight the relationship between the major points and the author's hypothesis as well as the relationship between the hypothesis and the broader discussion to demonstrate the significance of the review article in a larger context. In addition to giving a concise summary of the important findings that describe current knowledge, the conclusion must also offer a rationale for conducting future research [ 12 ]. Knowledge gaps should be identified, and themes should be logically developed in order to construct conceptual frameworks as well as present a way forward for future research in the field of study [ 11 ].

Furthermore, the author may have to justify the propositions made earlier in the manuscript, demonstrate how the paper extends past research works, and also suggest ways that the expounded theories can be empirically examined [ 3 ]. Unlike experimental studies which can only draw either a positive conclusion or ambiguous failure to reject the null hypothesis, four possible conclusions can be drawn from review articles [ 1 ]. First, the theory/hypothesis propounded may be correct after being proven from current evidence; second, the hypothesis may not be explicitly proven but is most probably the best guess. The third conclusion is that the currently available evidence does not permit a confident conclusion or a best guess, while the last conclusion is that the theory or hypothesis is false [ 1 ]. It is important not to present new information in the conclusion section which has link whatsoever with the rest of the manuscript. According to Harris et al. [ 90 ], the conclusions should, in essence, answer the question: if a reader were to remember one thing about the review, what would it be?

5.10. References

As it has been noted in different parts of this paper, authors must give the required credit to any work or source(s) of information that was included in the review article. This must include the in-text citations in the main body of the paper and the corresponding entries in the reference list. Ideally, this full bibliographical list is the last part of the review article, and it should contain all the books, book chapters, journal articles, reports, and other media, which were utilised in the manuscript. It has been noted that most journals and publishers have their own specific referencing styles which are all derived from the more popular styles such as the American Psychological Association (APA), Chicago, Harvard, Modern Language Association (MLA), and Vancouver styles. However, all these styles may be categorised into either the parenthetical or numerical referencing style. Although a few journals do not have strict referencing rules, it is the responsibility of the author to reference according to the style and instructions of the journal. Omissions and errors must be avoided at all costs, and this can be easily achieved by going over the references many times for due diligence [ 11 ]. According to Cronin et al. [ 12 ], a separate file for references can be created, and any work used in the manuscript can be added to this list immediately after being cited in the text [ 12 ]. In recent times, the emergence of various referencing management software applications such as Endnote, RefWorks, Mendeley, and Zotero has even made referencing easier. The majority of these software applications require little technical expertise, and many of them are free to use, while others may require a subscription. It is imperative, however, that even after using these software packages, the author must manually curate the references during the final draft, in order to avoid any errors, since these programs are not impervious to errors, particularly formatting errors.

6. Concluding Remarks

Writing a review article is a skill that needs to be learned; it is a rigorous but rewarding endeavour as it can provide a useful platform to project the emerging researcher or postgraduate student into the gratifying world of publishing. Thus, the reviewer must develop the ability to think critically, spot patterns in a large volume of information, and must be invested in writing without tiring. The prospective author must also be inspired and dedicated to the successful completion of the article while also ensuring that the review article is not just a mere list or summary of previous research. It is also important that the review process must be focused on the literature and not on the authors; thus, overt criticism of existing research and personal aspersions must be avoided at all costs. All ideas, sentences, words, and illustrations should be constructed in a way to avoid plagiarism; basically, this can be achieved by paraphrasing, summarising, and giving the necessary acknowledgments. Currently, there are many tools to track and detect plagiarism in manuscripts, ensuring that they fall within a reasonable similarity index (which is typically 15% or lower for most journals). Although the more popular of these tools, such as Turnitin and iThenticate, are subscription-based, there are many freely available web-based options as well. An ideal review article is supposed to motivate the research topic and describe its key concepts while delineating the boundaries of research. In this regard, experience-based information on how to methodologically develop acceptable and impactful review articles has been detailed in this paper. Furthermore, for a beginner, this guide has detailed “the why” and “the how” of authoring a good scientific review article. However, the information in this paper may as a whole or in parts be also applicable to other fields of research and to other writing endeavours such as writing literature review in theses, dissertations, and primary research articles. Finally, the intending authors must put all the basic rules of scientific writing and writing in general into cognizance. A comprehensive study of the articles cited within this paper and other related articles focused on scientific writing will further enhance the ability of the motivated beginner to deliver a good review article.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of South Africa under grant number UID 138097. The authors would like to thank the Durban University of Technology for funding the postdoctoral fellowship of the first author, Dr. Ayodeji Amobonye.

Data Availability

Conflicts of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Journal of Materials Chemistry A

Non-ir based catalysts for the electrocatalytic oxygen evolution reaction: progress and challenges.

* Corresponding authors

a School of Chemistry and Materials Science, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui, China E-mail: [email protected] , [email protected]

b Key Laboratory of Low-Carbon Conversion Science & Engineering, Shanghai Advanced Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai, China

c State Grid Anhui Electric Power Research Institute, Hefei, Anhui, China

Oxygen evolution reaction (OER) electrocatalysis is the key to solve the problem of hydrogen production by hydrolyzing water and rechargeable metal–air battery. Therefore, the development of active and highly stable oxygen evolution catalyst materials has become a hot research topic. Ir-based catalysts for oxygen evolution are the most common electrocatalytic materials, but the high price and low yield of iridium greatly restrict its large-scale development. It is of great significance to develop efficient and cheap non-iridium-based catalysts for oxygen evolution. Herein, we first conclude the reaction mechanisms of the OER, and then classify the OER catalysts. In addition, some new research achievements in non-iridium catalysts in the past 5 years are also reviewed. On this basis, some improvement of OER catalysts and their future development were discussed.

• This article is part of the themed collections: Journal of Materials Chemistry A Recent Review Articles and Design and characterization of flexible electrode materials

Article information

Download citation, permissions.

L. Lin, K. Wei, X. Wang, W. Ma, C. Bian and J. Ge, J. Mater. Chem. A , 2024, Advance Article , DOI: 10.1039/D4TA01277A

To request permission to reproduce material from this article, please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

If you are an author contributing to an RSC publication, you do not need to request permission provided correct acknowledgement is given.

If you are the author of this article, you do not need to request permission to reproduce figures and diagrams provided correct acknowledgement is given. If you want to reproduce the whole article in a third-party publication (excluding your thesis/dissertation for which permission is not required) please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content .

Social activity

Search articles by author.

This article has not yet been cited.

Advertisements