scientific research paper write

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
• Prev Chronic Dis

Successful Scientific Writing and Publishing: A Step-by-Step Approach

John k. iskander.

1 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia

Sara Beth Wolicki

2 Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health, Washington, District of Columbia

Rebecca T. Leeb

Paul z. siegel.

Scientific writing and publication are essential to advancing knowledge and practice in public health, but prospective authors face substantial challenges. Authors can overcome barriers, such as lack of understanding about scientific writing and the publishing process, with training and resources. The objective of this article is to provide guidance and practical recommendations to help both inexperienced and experienced authors working in public health settings to more efficiently publish the results of their work in the peer-reviewed literature. We include an overview of basic scientific writing principles, a detailed description of the sections of an original research article, and practical recommendations for selecting a journal and responding to peer review comments. The overall approach and strategies presented are intended to contribute to individual career development while also increasing the external validity of published literature and promoting quality public health science.

Introduction

Publishing in the peer-reviewed literature is essential to advancing science and its translation to practice in public health ( 1 , 2 ). The public health workforce is diverse and practices in a variety of settings ( 3 ). For some public health professionals, writing and publishing the results of their work is a requirement. Others, such as program managers, policy makers, or health educators, may see publishing as being outside the scope of their responsibilities ( 4 ).

Disseminating new knowledge via writing and publishing is vital both to authors and to the field of public health ( 5 ). On an individual level, publishing is associated with professional development and career advancement ( 6 ). Publications share new research, results, and methods in a trusted format and advance scientific knowledge and practice ( 1 , 7 ). As more public health professionals are empowered to publish, the science and practice of public health will advance ( 1 ).

Unfortunately, prospective authors face barriers to publishing their work, including navigating the process of scientific writing and publishing, which can be time-consuming and cumbersome. Often, public health professionals lack both training opportunities and understanding of the process ( 8 ). To address these barriers and encourage public health professionals to publish their findings, the senior author (P.Z.S.) and others developed Successful Scientific Writing (SSW), a course about scientific writing and publishing. Over the past 30 years, this course has been taught to thousands of public health professionals, as well as hundreds of students at multiple graduate schools of public health. An unpublished longitudinal survey of course participants indicated that two-thirds agreed that SSW had helped them to publish a scientific manuscript or have a conference abstract accepted. The course content has been translated into this manuscript. The objective of this article is to provide prospective authors with the tools needed to write original research articles of high quality that have a good chance of being published.

Basic Recommendations for Scientific Writing

Prospective authors need to know and tailor their writing to the audience. When writing for scientific journals, 4 fundamental recommendations are: clearly stating the usefulness of the study, formulating a key message, limiting unnecessary words, and using strategic sentence structure.

To demonstrate usefulness, focus on how the study addresses a meaningful gap in current knowledge or understanding. What critical piece of information does the study provide that will help solve an important public health problem? For example, if a particular group of people is at higher risk for a specific condition, but the magnitude of that risk is unknown, a study to quantify the risk could be important for measuring the population’s burden of disease.

Scientific articles should have a clear and concise take-home message. Typically, this is expressed in 1 to 2 sentences that summarize the main point of the paper. This message can be used to focus the presentation of background information, results, and discussion of findings. As an early step in the drafting of an article, we recommend writing out the take-home message and sharing it with co-authors for their review and comment. Authors who know their key point are better able to keep their writing within the scope of the article and present information more succinctly. Once an initial draft of the manuscript is complete, the take-home message can be used to review the content and remove needless words, sentences, or paragraphs.

Concise writing improves the clarity of an article. Including additional words or clauses can divert from the main message and confuse the reader. Additionally, journal articles are typically limited by word count. The most important words and phrases to eliminate are those that do not add meaning, or are duplicative. Often, cutting adjectives or parenthetical statements results in a more concise paper that is also easier to read.

Sentence structure strongly influences the readability and comprehension of journal articles. Twenty to 25 words is a reasonable range for maximum sentence length. Limit the number of clauses per sentence, and place the most important or relevant clause at the end of the sentence ( 9 ). Consider the sentences:

• By using these tips and tricks, an author may write and publish an additional 2 articles a year.
• An author may write and publish an additional 2 articles a year by using these tips and tricks.

The focus of the first sentence is on the impact of using the tips and tricks, that is, 2 more articles published per year. In contrast, the second sentence focuses on the tips and tricks themselves.

Authors should use the active voice whenever possible. Consider the following example:

• Active voice: Authors who use the active voice write more clearly.
• Passive voice: Clarity of writing is promoted by the use of the active voice.

The active voice specifies who is doing the action described in the sentence. Using the active voice improves clarity and understanding, and generally uses fewer words. Scientific writing includes both active and passive voice, but authors should be intentional with their use of either one.

Sections of an Original Research Article

Original research articles make up most of the peer-reviewed literature ( 10 ), follow a standardized format, and are the focus of this article. The 4 main sections are the introduction, methods, results, and discussion, sometimes referred to by the initialism, IMRAD. These 4 sections are referred to as the body of an article. Two additional components of all peer-reviewed articles are the title and the abstract. Each section’s purpose and key components, along with specific recommendations for writing each section, are listed below.

Title. The purpose of a title is twofold: to provide an accurate and informative summary and to attract the target audience. Both prospective readers and database search engines use the title to screen articles for relevance ( 2 ). All titles should clearly state the topic being studied. The topic includes the who, what, when, and where of the study. Along with the topic, select 1 or 2 of the following items to include within the title: methods, results, conclusions, or named data set or study. The items chosen should emphasize what is new and useful about the study. Some sources recommend limiting the title to less than 150 characters ( 2 ). Articles with shorter titles are more frequently cited than articles with longer titles ( 11 ). Several title options are possible for the same study ( Figure ).

Two examples of title options for a single study.

Abstract . The abstract serves 2 key functions. Journals may screen articles for potential publication by using the abstract alone ( 12 ), and readers may use the abstract to decide whether to read further. Therefore, it is critical to produce an accurate and clear abstract that highlights the major purpose of the study, basic procedures, main findings, and principal conclusions ( 12 ). Most abstracts have a word limit and can be either structured following IMRAD, or unstructured. The abstract needs to stand alone from the article and tell the most important parts of the scientific story up front.

Introduction . The purpose of the introduction is to explain how the study sought to create knowledge that is new and useful. The introduction section may often require only 3 paragraphs. First, describe the scope, nature, or magnitude of the problem being addressed. Next, clearly articulate why better understanding this problem is useful, including what is currently known and the limitations of relevant previous studies. Finally, explain what the present study adds to the knowledge base. Explicitly state whether data were collected in a unique way or obtained from a previously unstudied data set or population. Presenting both the usefulness and novelty of the approach taken will prepare the reader for the remaining sections of the article.

Methods . The methods section provides the information necessary to allow others, given the same data, to recreate the analysis. It describes exactly how data relevant to the study purpose were collected, organized, and analyzed. The methods section describes the process of conducting the study — from how the sample was selected to which statistical methods were used to analyze the data. Authors should clearly name, define, and describe each study variable. Some journals allow detailed methods to be included in an appendix or supplementary document. If the analysis involves a commonly used public health data set, such as the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System ( 13 ), general aspects of the data set can be provided to readers by using references. Because what was done is typically more important than who did it, use of the passive voice is often appropriate when describing methods. For example, “The study was a group randomized, controlled trial. A coin was tossed to select an intervention group and a control group.”

Results . The results section describes the main outcomes of the study or analysis but does not interpret the findings or place them in the context of previous research. It is important that the results be logically organized. Suggested organization strategies include presenting results pertaining to the entire population first, and then subgroup analyses, or presenting results according to increasing complexity of analysis, starting with demographic results before proceeding to univariate and multivariate analyses. Authors wishing to draw special attention to novel or unexpected results can present them first.

One strategy for writing the results section is to start by first drafting the figures and tables. Figures, which typically show trends or relationships, and tables, which show specific data points, should each support a main outcome of the study. Identify the figures and tables that best describe the findings and relate to the study’s purpose, and then develop 1 to 2 sentences summarizing each one. Data not relevant to the study purpose may be excluded, summarized briefly in the text, or included in supplemental data sets. When finalizing figures, ensure that axes are labeled and that readers can understand figures without having to refer to accompanying text.

Discussion . In the discussion section, authors interpret the results of their study within the context of both the related literature and the specific scientific gap the study was intended to fill. The discussion does not introduce results that were not presented in the results section. One way authors can focus their discussion is to limit this section to 4 paragraphs: start by reinforcing the study’s take-home message(s), contextualize key results within the relevant literature, state the study limitations, and lastly, make recommendations for further research or policy and practice changes. Authors can support assertions made in the discussion with either their own findings or by referencing related research. By interpreting their own study results and comparing them to others in the literature, authors can emphasize findings that are unique, useful, and relevant. Present study limitations clearly and without apology. Finally, state the implications of the study and provide recommendations or next steps, for example, further research into remaining gaps or changes to practice or policy. Statements or recommendations regarding policy may use the passive voice, especially in instances where the action to be taken is more important than who will implement the action.

Beginning the Writing Process

The process of writing a scientific article occurs before, during, and after conducting the study or analyses. Conducting a literature review is crucial to confirm the existence of the evidence gap that the planned analysis seeks to fill. Because literature searches are often part of applying for research funding or developing a study protocol, the citations used in the grant application or study proposal can also be used in subsequent manuscripts. Full-text databases such as PubMed Central ( 14 ), NIH RePORT ( 15 ), and CDC Stacks ( 16 ) can be useful when performing literature reviews. Authors should familiarize themselves with databases that are accessible through their institution and any assistance that may be available from reference librarians or interlibrary loan systems. Using citation management software is one way to establish and maintain a working reference list. Authors should clearly understand the distinction between primary and secondary references, and ensure that they are knowledgeable about the content of any primary or secondary reference that they cite.

Review of the literature may continue while organizing the material and writing begins. One way to organize material is to create an outline for the paper. Another way is to begin drafting small sections of the article such as the introduction. Starting a preliminary draft forces authors to establish the scope of their analysis and clearly articulate what is new and novel about the study. Furthermore, using information from the study protocol or proposal allows authors to draft the methods and part of the results sections while the study is in progress. Planning potential data comparisons or drafting “table shells” will help to ensure that the study team has collected all the necessary data. Drafting these preliminary sections early during the writing process and seeking feedback from co-authors and colleagues may help authors avoid potential pitfalls, including misunderstandings about study objectives.

The next step is to conduct the study or analyses and use the resulting data to fill in the draft table shells. The initial results will most likely require secondary analyses, that is, exploring the data in ways in addition to those originally planned. Authors should ensure that they regularly update their methods section to describe all changes to data analysis.

After completing table shells, authors should summarize the key finding of each table or figure in a sentence or two. Presenting preliminary results at meetings, conferences, and internal seminars is an established way to solicit feedback. Authors should pay close attention to questions asked by the audience, treating them as an informal opportunity for peer review. On the basis of the questions and feedback received, authors can incorporate revisions and improvements into subsequent drafts of the manuscript.

The relevant literature should be revisited periodically while writing to ensure knowledge of the most recent publications about the manuscript topic. Authors should focus on content and key message during the process of writing the first draft and should not spend too much time on issues of grammar or style. Drafts, or portions of drafts, should be shared frequently with trusted colleagues. Their recommendations should be reviewed and incorporated when they will improve the manuscript’s overall clarity.

For most authors, revising drafts of the manuscript will be the most time-consuming task involved in writing a paper. By regularly checking in with coauthors and colleagues, authors can adopt a systematic approach to rewriting. When the author has completed a draft of the manuscript, he or she should revisit the key take-home message to ensure that it still matches the final data and analysis. At this point, final comments and approval of the manuscript by coauthors can be sought.

Authors should then seek to identify journals most likely to be interested in considering the study for publication. Initial questions to consider when selecting a journal include:

• Which audience is most interested in the paper’s message?
• Would clinicians, public health practitioners, policy makers, scientists, or a broader audience find this useful in their field or practice?
• Do colleagues have prior experience submitting a manuscript to this journal?
• Is the journal indexed and peer-reviewed?
• Is the journal subscription or open-access and are there any processing fees?
• How competitive is the journal?

Authors should seek to balance the desire to be published in a top-tier journal (eg, Journal of the American Medical Association, BMJ, or Lancet) against the statistical likelihood of rejection. Submitting the paper initially to a journal more focused on the paper’s target audience may result in a greater chance of acceptance, as well as more timely dissemination of findings that can be translated into practice. Most of the 50 to 75 manuscripts published each week by authors from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are published in specialty and subspecialty journals, rather than in top-tier journals ( 17 ).

The target journal’s website will include author guidelines, which will contain specific information about format requirements (eg, font, line spacing, section order, reference style and limit, table and figure formatting), authorship criteria, article types, and word limits for articles and abstracts.

We recommend returning to the previously drafted abstract and ensuring that it complies with the journal’s format and word limit. Authors should also verify that any changes made to the methods or results sections during the article’s drafting are reflected in the final version of the abstract. The abstract should not be written hurriedly just before submitting the manuscript; it is often apparent to editors and reviewers when this has happened. A cover letter to accompany the submission should be drafted; new and useful findings and the key message should be included.

Before submitting the manuscript and cover letter, authors should perform a final check to ensure that their paper complies with all journal requirements. Journals may elect to reject certain submissions on the basis of review of the abstract, or may send them to peer reviewers (typically 2 or 3) for consultation. Occasionally, on the basis of peer reviews, the journal will request only minor changes before accepting the paper for publication. Much more frequently, authors will receive a request to revise and resubmit their manuscript, taking into account peer review comments. Authors should recognize that while revise-and-resubmit requests may state that the manuscript is not acceptable in its current form, this does not constitute a rejection of the article. Authors have several options in responding to peer review comments:

• Performing additional analyses and updating the article appropriately
• Declining to perform additional analyses, but providing an explanation (eg, because the requested analysis goes beyond the scope of the article)
• Providing updated references
• Acknowledging reviewer comments that are simply comments without making changes

In addition to submitting a revised manuscript, authors should include a cover letter in which they list peer reviewer comments, along with the revisions they have made to the manuscript and their reply to the comment. The tone of such letters should be thankful and polite, but authors should make clear areas of disagreement with peer reviewers, and explain why they disagree. During the peer review process, authors should continue to consult with colleagues, especially ones who have more experience with the specific journal or with the peer review process.

There is no secret to successful scientific writing and publishing. By adopting a systematic approach and by regularly seeking feedback from trusted colleagues throughout the study, writing, and article submission process, authors can increase their likelihood of not only publishing original research articles of high quality but also becoming more scientifically productive overall.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge PCD ’s former Associate Editor, Richard A. Goodman, MD, MPH, who, while serving as Editor in Chief of CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Series, initiated a curriculum on scientific writing for training CDC’s Epidemic Intelligence Service Officers and other CDC public health professionals, and with whom the senior author of this article (P.Z.S.) collaborated in expanding training methods and contents, some of which are contained in this article. The authors acknowledge Juan Carlos Zevallos, MD, for his thoughtful critique and careful editing of previous Successful Scientific Writing materials. We also thank Shira Eisenberg for editorial assistance with the manuscript. This publication was supported by the Cooperative Agreement no. 1U360E000002 from CDC and the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health. The findings and conclusions of this article do not necessarily represent the official views of CDC or the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health. Names of journals and citation databases are provided for identification purposes only and do not constitute any endorsement by CDC.

The opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions.

Suggested citation for this article: Iskander JK, Wolicki SB, Leeb RT, Siegel PZ. Successful Scientific Writing and Publishing: A Step-by-Step Approach. Prev Chronic Dis 2018;15:180085. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd15.180085 .

How To Write A Research Paper

Step-By-Step Tutorial With Examples + FREE Template

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Expert Reviewer: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | March 2024

For many students, crafting a strong research paper from scratch can feel like a daunting task – and rightly so! In this post, we’ll unpack what a research paper is, what it needs to do , and how to write one – in three easy steps. 🙂 

Overview: Writing A Research Paper

What (exactly) is a research paper.

• How to write a research paper
• Stage 1 : Topic & literature search
• Stage 2 : Structure & outline
• Stage 3 : Iterative writing
• Key takeaways

Let’s start by asking the most important question, “ What is a research paper? ”.

Simply put, a research paper is a scholarly written work where the writer (that’s you!) answers a specific question (this is called a research question ) through evidence-based arguments . Evidence-based is the keyword here. In other words, a research paper is different from an essay or other writing assignments that draw from the writer’s personal opinions or experiences. With a research paper, it’s all about building your arguments based on evidence (we’ll talk more about that evidence a little later).

Now, it’s worth noting that there are many different types of research papers , including analytical papers (the type I just described), argumentative papers, and interpretative papers. Here, we’ll focus on analytical papers , as these are some of the most common – but if you’re keen to learn about other types of research papers, be sure to check out the rest of the blog .

With that basic foundation laid, let’s get down to business and look at how to write a research paper .

Overview: The 3-Stage Process

While there are, of course, many potential approaches you can take to write a research paper, there are typically three stages to the writing process. So, in this tutorial, we’ll present a straightforward three-step process that we use when working with students at Grad Coach.

These three steps are:

• Finding a research topic and reviewing the existing literature
• Developing a provisional structure and outline for your paper, and
• Writing up your initial draft and then refining it iteratively

Let’s dig into each of these.

Need a helping hand?

Step 1: Find a topic and review the literature

As we mentioned earlier, in a research paper, you, as the researcher, will try to answer a question . More specifically, that’s called a research question , and it sets the direction of your entire paper. What’s important to understand though is that you’ll need to answer that research question with the help of high-quality sources – for example, journal articles, government reports, case studies, and so on. We’ll circle back to this in a minute.

The first stage of the research process is deciding on what your research question will be and then reviewing the existing literature (in other words, past studies and papers) to see what they say about that specific research question. In some cases, your professor may provide you with a predetermined research question (or set of questions). However, in many cases, you’ll need to find your own research question within a certain topic area.

Finding a strong research question hinges on identifying a meaningful research gap – in other words, an area that’s lacking in existing research. There’s a lot to unpack here, so if you wanna learn more, check out the plain-language explainer video below.

Once you’ve figured out which question (or questions) you’ll attempt to answer in your research paper, you’ll need to do a deep dive into the existing literature – this is called a “ literature search ”. Again, there are many ways to go about this, but your most likely starting point will be Google Scholar .

If you’re new to Google Scholar, think of it as Google for the academic world. You can start by simply entering a few different keywords that are relevant to your research question and it will then present a host of articles for you to review. What you want to pay close attention to here is the number of citations for each paper – the more citations a paper has, the more credible it is (generally speaking – there are some exceptions, of course).

Ideally, what you’re looking for are well-cited papers that are highly relevant to your topic. That said, keep in mind that citations are a cumulative metric , so older papers will often have more citations than newer papers – just because they’ve been around for longer. So, don’t fixate on this metric in isolation – relevance and recency are also very important.

Beyond Google Scholar, you’ll also definitely want to check out academic databases and aggregators such as Science Direct, PubMed, JStor and so on. These will often overlap with the results that you find in Google Scholar, but they can also reveal some hidden gems – so, be sure to check them out.

Once you’ve worked your way through all the literature, you’ll want to catalogue all this information in some sort of spreadsheet so that you can easily recall who said what, when and within what context. If you’d like, we’ve got a free literature spreadsheet that helps you do exactly that.

Step 2: Develop a structure and outline

With your research question pinned down and your literature digested and catalogued, it’s time to move on to planning your actual research paper .

It might sound obvious, but it’s really important to have some sort of rough outline in place before you start writing your paper. So often, we see students eagerly rushing into the writing phase, only to land up with a disjointed research paper that rambles on in multiple

Now, the secret here is to not get caught up in the fine details . Realistically, all you need at this stage is a bullet-point list that describes (in broad strokes) what you’ll discuss and in what order. It’s also useful to remember that you’re not glued to this outline – in all likelihood, you’ll chop and change some sections once you start writing, and that’s perfectly okay. What’s important is that you have some sort of roadmap in place from the start.

At this stage you might be wondering, “ But how should I structure my research paper? ”. Well, there’s no one-size-fits-all solution here, but in general, a research paper will consist of a few relatively standardised components:

• Introduction
• Literature review
• Methodology

Let’s take a look at each of these.

First up is the introduction section . As the name suggests, the purpose of the introduction is to set the scene for your research paper. There are usually (at least) four ingredients that go into this section – these are the background to the topic, the research problem and resultant research question , and the justification or rationale. If you’re interested, the video below unpacks the introduction section in more detail. 

The next section of your research paper will typically be your literature review . Remember all that literature you worked through earlier? Well, this is where you’ll present your interpretation of all that content . You’ll do this by writing about recent trends, developments, and arguments within the literature – but more specifically, those that are relevant to your research question . The literature review can oftentimes seem a little daunting, even to seasoned researchers, so be sure to check out our extensive collection of literature review content here .

With the introduction and lit review out of the way, the next section of your paper is the research methodology . In a nutshell, the methodology section should describe to your reader what you did (beyond just reviewing the existing literature) to answer your research question. For example, what data did you collect, how did you collect that data, how did you analyse that data and so on? For each choice, you’ll also need to justify why you chose to do it that way, and what the strengths and weaknesses of your approach were.

Now, it’s worth mentioning that for some research papers, this aspect of the project may be a lot simpler . For example, you may only need to draw on secondary sources (in other words, existing data sets). In some cases, you may just be asked to draw your conclusions from the literature search itself (in other words, there may be no data analysis at all). But, if you are required to collect and analyse data, you’ll need to pay a lot of attention to the methodology section. The video below provides an example of what the methodology section might look like.

By this stage of your paper, you will have explained what your research question is, what the existing literature has to say about that question, and how you analysed additional data to try to answer your question. So, the natural next step is to present your analysis of that data . This section is usually called the “results” or “analysis” section and this is where you’ll showcase your findings.

Depending on your school’s requirements, you may need to present and interpret the data in one section – or you might split the presentation and the interpretation into two sections. In the latter case, your “results” section will just describe the data, and the “discussion” is where you’ll interpret that data and explicitly link your analysis back to your research question. If you’re not sure which approach to take, check in with your professor or take a look at past papers to see what the norms are for your programme.

Alright – once you’ve presented and discussed your results, it’s time to wrap it up . This usually takes the form of the “ conclusion ” section. In the conclusion, you’ll need to highlight the key takeaways from your study and close the loop by explicitly answering your research question. Again, the exact requirements here will vary depending on your programme (and you may not even need a conclusion section at all) – so be sure to check with your professor if you’re unsure.

Step 3: Write and refine

Finally, it’s time to get writing. All too often though, students hit a brick wall right about here… So, how do you avoid this happening to you?

Well, there’s a lot to be said when it comes to writing a research paper (or any sort of academic piece), but we’ll share three practical tips to help you get started.

First and foremost , it’s essential to approach your writing as an iterative process. In other words, you need to start with a really messy first draft and then polish it over multiple rounds of editing. Don’t waste your time trying to write a perfect research paper in one go. Instead, take the pressure off yourself by adopting an iterative approach.

Secondly , it’s important to always lean towards critical writing , rather than descriptive writing. What does this mean? Well, at the simplest level, descriptive writing focuses on the “ what ”, while critical writing digs into the “ so what ” – in other words, the implications . If you’re not familiar with these two types of writing, don’t worry! You can find a plain-language explanation here.

Last but not least, you’ll need to get your referencing right. Specifically, you’ll need to provide credible, correctly formatted citations for the statements you make. We see students making referencing mistakes all the time and it costs them dearly. The good news is that you can easily avoid this by using a simple reference manager . If you don’t have one, check out our video about Mendeley, an easy (and free) reference management tool that you can start using today.

Recap: Key Takeaways

We’ve covered a lot of ground here. To recap, the three steps to writing a high-quality research paper are:

• To choose a research question and review the literature
• To plan your paper structure and draft an outline
• To take an iterative approach to writing, focusing on critical writing and strong referencing

Remember, this is just a b ig-picture overview of the research paper development process and there’s a lot more nuance to unpack. So, be sure to grab a copy of our free research paper template to learn more about how to write a research paper.

You Might Also Like:

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.

• PLOS Biology
• PLOS Climate
• PLOS Complex Systems
• PLOS Computational Biology
• PLOS Digital Health
• PLOS Genetics
• PLOS Global Public Health
• PLOS Medicine
• PLOS Mental Health
• PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
• PLOS Pathogens
• PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
• PLOS Collections

Welcome to the PLOS Writing Center

Your source for scientific writing & publishing essentials.

A collection of free, practical guides and hands-on resources for authors looking to improve their scientific publishing skillset.

ARTICLE-WRITING ESSENTIALS

Your title is the first thing anyone who reads your article is going to see, and for many it will be where they stop reading. Learn how to write a title that helps readers find your article, draws your audience in and sets the stage for your research!

The abstract is your chance to let your readers know what they can expect from your article. Learn how to write a clear, and concise abstract that will keep your audience reading.

A clear methods section impacts editorial evaluation and readers’ understanding, and is also the backbone of transparency and replicability. Learn what to include in your methods section, and how much detail is appropriate.

In many fields, a statistical analysis forms the heart of both the methods and results sections of a manuscript. Learn how to report statistical analyses, and what other context is important for publication success and future reproducibility.

The discussion section contains the results and outcomes of a study. An effective discussion informs readers what can be learned from your experiment and provides context for the results.

Ensuring your manuscript is well-written makes it easier for editors, reviewers and readers to understand your work. Avoiding language errors can help accelerate review and minimize delays in the publication of your research.

The PLOS Writing Toolbox

Delivered to your inbox every two weeks, the Writing Toolbox features practical advice and tools you can use to prepare a research manuscript for submission success and build your scientific writing skillset. 

Discover how to navigate the peer review and publishing process, beyond writing your article.

The path to publication can be unsettling when you’re unsure what’s happening with your paper. Learn about staple journal workflows to see the detailed steps required for ensuring a rigorous and ethical publication.

Reputable journals screen for ethics at submission—and inability to pass ethics checks is one of the most common reasons for rejection. Unfortunately, once a study has begun, it’s often too late to secure the requisite ethical reviews and clearances. Learn how to prepare for publication success by ensuring your study meets all ethical requirements before work begins.

From preregistration, to preprints, to publication—learn how and when to share your study.

How you store your data matters. Even after you publish your article, your data needs to be accessible and useable for the long term so that other researchers can continue building on your work. Good data management practices make your data discoverable and easy to use, promote a strong foundation for reproducibility and increase your likelihood of citations.

You’ve just spent months completing your study, writing up the results and submitting to your top-choice journal. Now the feedback is in and it’s time to revise. Set out a clear plan for your response to keep yourself on-track and ensure edits don’t fall through the cracks.

There’s a lot to consider when deciding where to submit your work. Learn how to choose a journal that will help your study reach its audience, while reflecting your values as a researcher.

Are you actively preparing a submission for a PLOS journal? Select the relevant journal below for more detailed guidelines. 

How to Write an Article  

Share the lessons of the Writing Center in a live, interactive training.

Access tried-and-tested training modules, complete with slides and talking points, workshop activities, and more.

A Nature Research Service

Scientific Writing and Publishing

For students and researchers in the natural sciences who are new to scientific writing or publishing or who wish to refresh their skills

Subscriptions available to institutions, departments and labs

Key features

3 on-demand courses  with certificates

36 Editors  Scientific writing and publishing experts, including Nature Portfolio Editors

21   hours  of learning

10-minute lessons

English language captions and transcripts

Skills gained

Develop writing skills and confidence writing for journals

Understand editorial processes and what editors look for

Learn best practices for submitting a paper and peer review

What you will learn in the three courses

Writing a research paper: 2nd edition.

Learn the detailed processes of writing a research paper

Publishing a Research Paper

Learn about the publication process and the things you need to consider

Writing and Publishing a Review Paper

Prepare yourself to write and publish a great review paper

Delivered by Nature Portfolio journal Editors

The courses are delivered by 30  Editors from over 20 Nature Portfolio journals  - giving researchers an unparalleled insight into the publishing and manuscript selection process.

“It was excellent to hear from the editors, personally, about what they are looking for.” 

Principal Investigator, Canada

Dip in and out design

Researchers can work at their own pace through the three courses - whether that is working through the courses in order or dipping in and out of modules. There are three courses, and content is easy to find. Each course has its own certificate of completion. The lessons are bite-sized (around 10 mins) and easy to fit around a busy research schedule.

“The shortness of the videos allows me to fit them in between work and research. This format also meant that I could take in the information bit by bit...” 

Post-doctoral student, United States

Individual researcher?

Recommend us.

Recommend the course to a lab, department, or institution.

FREE SAMPLE

Register for free to access a sample of the online course. 

Subscriptions

Laboratory subscription.

• Up to 15 researchers
• 12 months’ access
• Usage reports showing researcher uptake
• Discounts for multi-year

Price: Request a quote

Departmental subscription

• Up to 50 researchers
• Promotional resources
• Discounts for multi-year  

Institutional subscription

• Institution-wide access
• Launch presentation

Subscribers worldwide

Institutions are subscribing to our 'Scientific Writing and Publishing' courses to support their researchers in getting published. 

Discover related courses

Focus on peer review online course.

Explore the role of a peer reviewer and the foundations of a good peer review

Live, editor-led workshops in scientific writing and publishing

One- and two-day workshops, available to institutions worldwide

Image Credits

Writing and Publishing a Scientific Research Paper

• © 2017
• Subhash Chandra Parija 0 ,
• Vikram Kate 1

Department of Microbiology, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education & Research (JIPMER), Puducherry, India

You can also search for this editor in PubMed   Google Scholar

Department of Surgery, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education & Research (JIPMER), Puducherry, India

• The book covers all aspects of scientific writing from submission to publishing in detail
• Written and edited by world leaders in the field
• Chapters are easy to understand with essential contents for writing quality scientific research paper and easy to follow algorithms and key points in each chapter
• Chapters highlight the importance of each section of the scientific article
• A comprehensive book which will focus on how to deal with rejected manuscripts, issues of plagiarism and ethical principles of scientific publications

12 Citations

10 Altmetric

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this book

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Other ways to access

Licence this eBook for your library

Institutional subscriptions

Table of contents (18 chapters)

Front matter, writing a scientific research paper, why write a scientific research paper.

• Subhash Chandra Parija, Vikram Kate

Components and Structure of a Manuscript

• Sitanshu Sekhar Kar, Rakhee Kar
• S. Shyama Prem

Abstract and Keywords

• Vikram Kate, S. Suresh Kumar, Mohsina Subair

Introduction

• Tamilarasu Kadhiravan, Molly Mary Thabah
• B. Vishnu Bhat, S. Kingsley Manoj Kumar, G. Krishna Rao
• R. Ramesh, N. Ananthakrishnan

Discussion and Conclusion

• Zubair H. Aghai, David Carola
• Anup Mohta, Medha Mohta

Figures, Tables and Supporting Material

• Dinker Pai, Soon Kyit Chua, Suneet Sood

Publishing a Scientific Research Paper

Choosing a journal for paper submission and methods of submission.

• Vikram Kate, Madhuri Parija Halder, Subhash Chandra Parija

Revision of an Article and How to Deal with the Rejected Manuscript

• Vikram Kate, Raja Kalayarasan

Authorship and Contributorship

• Akash Shukla, Avinash Supe

Types of Manuscripts

• Rajive Mathew Jose, Kiruthika Sivasubramanian

What Does a Reviewer Look into a Manuscript

• Devinder Mohan Thappa, Malathi Munisamy

Open Access for Publication – Can It Be Chosen?

• Savio George Barreto

Publishing Misconduct Including Plagiarism and Permissions

• C. Adithan, A. Surendiran
• Components of Scientific research paper
• Choosing a journal for paper submission
• Dealing with rejected manuscript
• Authorship and contributorship
• Reviewer’s perspective of the manuscript
• Plagiarism and permissions

About this book

This book covers all essential aspects of writing scientific research articles, presenting eighteen carefully selected titles that offer essential, “must-know” content on how to write high-quality articles. The book also addresses other, rarely discussed areas of scientific writing including dealing with rejected manuscripts, the reviewer’s perspective as to what they expect in a scientific article, plagiarism, copyright issues, and ethical standards in publishing scientific papers. Simplicity is the book’s hallmark, and it aims to provide an accessible, comprehensive and essential resource for those seeking guidance on how to publish their research work.

The importance of publishing research work cannot be overemphasized. However, a major limitation in publishing work in a scientific journal is the lack of information on or experience with scientific writing and publishing. Young faculty and trainees who are starting their research career are in need of a comprehensive guidethat provides all essential components of scientific writing and aids them in getting their research work published.

Editors and Affiliations

Department of microbiology, jawaharlal institute of postgraduate medical education & research (jipmer), puducherry, india.

Subhash Chandra Parija

Department of Surgery, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education & Research (JIPMER), Puducherry, India

Vikram Kate

About the editors

Subhash Chandra Parija is the Director of the Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education & Research (JIPMER), Pondicherry, India, and has nearly three and half decades of teaching and research experience in Medical Microbiology. Prof. Parija is a Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) expert, and has been consulted to draft guidelines on food safety for parasites. Prof. Parija was on the Board of MD Examination at Colombo University, Sri Lanka, Sultan Quaboos University, Oman, University of Malaya, Malaysia. He was conferred a D.Sc. for his contributions in the field of Medical Parasitology by Madras University. The author of ten books including the “Text Book of Medical Parasitology,” he has published more than 300 papers in both national and international journals of repute.

Prof. Parija has been honored with more than 25 awards including the Medical Council of India’s Dr. BC Roy National Award and the National Academy of MedicalSciences’ Dr. PN Chuttani Oration Award. Prof. Parija founded the Indian Academy of Tropical Parasitology (IATP), the only professional organization of Medical Parasitologists in India, and initiated the journal Tropical Parasitology.

Vikram Kate  is currently the Professor and Head, Department of the Surgery and Senior Consultant General and Gastrointestinal Surgeon at Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education & Research (JIPMER), Puducherry. He has contributed more than 25 chapters in reputed surgical gastroenterology and surgery textbooks, and has more than 140 papers to his credit. He is a Past President of the Indian Association of Surgical Gastroenterology. He was awarded the Membership Diploma of the Faculty of Surgical Trainers by the Royal College of Surgeons, Edinburgh. Further, he currently serves as the Editor-in-Chief of The International Journal of Advanced Medical and Health Research , the official journal of JIPMER.

Professor Kate is Examiner for the M.S./M.Ch./DNB and Ph.D. program for Surgery, Surgical Gastroenterology and Intercollegiate Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons, Edinburgh. He is a Fellow of Royal College of Surgeons of England, Edinburgh and Glasgow (FRCS, FRCS Ed., FRCS Glasg.), and of the American College of Surgeons (FACS) and the American College of Gastroenterology (FACG). He has been honored with many awards, including the Dr. Mathias Oration (2010), the Prof. N. Rangabashyam Oration (2015), by the Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry Chapter of the Association of Surgeons of India and the Silver Jubilee MASICON Oration (2016) by the Nagpur Branch of the Association of Surgeons of India. 

Bibliographic Information

Book Title : Writing and Publishing a Scientific Research Paper

Editors : Subhash Chandra Parija, Vikram Kate

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4720-6

Publisher : Springer Singapore

eBook Packages : Medicine , Medicine (R0)

Copyright Information : Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Hardcover ISBN : 978-981-10-4719-0 Published: 09 August 2017

Softcover ISBN : 978-981-13-5211-9 Published: 13 December 2018

eBook ISBN : 978-981-10-4720-6 Published: 28 July 2017

Edition Number : 1

Number of Pages : XVII, 195

Number of Illustrations : 12 b/w illustrations, 39 illustrations in colour

Topics : Medicine/Public Health, general

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

This document originally came from the Journal of Mammalogy courtesy of Dr. Ronald Barry, a former editor of the journal.

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Research Paper

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

The Research Paper

There will come a time in most students' careers when they are assigned a research paper. Such an assignment often creates a great deal of unneeded anxiety in the student, which may result in procrastination and a feeling of confusion and inadequacy. This anxiety frequently stems from the fact that many students are unfamiliar and inexperienced with this genre of writing. Never fear—inexperience and unfamiliarity are situations you can change through practice! Writing a research paper is an essential aspect of academics and should not be avoided on account of one's anxiety. In fact, the process of writing a research paper can be one of the more rewarding experiences one may encounter in academics. What is more, many students will continue to do research throughout their careers, which is one of the reasons this topic is so important.

Becoming an experienced researcher and writer in any field or discipline takes a great deal of practice. There are few individuals for whom this process comes naturally. Remember, even the most seasoned academic veterans have had to learn how to write a research paper at some point in their career. Therefore, with diligence, organization, practice, a willingness to learn (and to make mistakes!), and, perhaps most important of all, patience, students will find that they can achieve great things through their research and writing.

The pages in this section cover the following topic areas related to the process of writing a research paper:

• Genre - This section will provide an overview for understanding the difference between an analytical and argumentative research paper.
• Choosing a Topic - This section will guide the student through the process of choosing topics, whether the topic be one that is assigned or one that the student chooses themselves.
• Identifying an Audience - This section will help the student understand the often times confusing topic of audience by offering some basic guidelines for the process.
• Where Do I Begin - This section concludes the handout by offering several links to resources at Purdue, and also provides an overview of the final stages of writing a research paper.

AI-assisted writing is quietly booming in academic journals. Here’s why that’s OK

Lecturer in Bioethics, Monash University & Honorary fellow, Melbourne Law School, Monash University

Disclosure statement

Julian Koplin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Monash University provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

If you search Google Scholar for the phrase “ as an AI language model ”, you’ll find plenty of AI research literature and also some rather suspicious results. For example, one paper on agricultural technology says:

As an AI language model, I don’t have direct access to current research articles or studies. However, I can provide you with an overview of some recent trends and advancements …

Obvious gaffes like this aren’t the only signs that researchers are increasingly turning to generative AI tools when writing up their research. A recent study examined the frequency of certain words in academic writing (such as “commendable”, “meticulously” and “intricate”), and found they became far more common after the launch of ChatGPT – so much so that 1% of all journal articles published in 2023 may have contained AI-generated text.

(Why do AI models overuse these words? There is speculation it’s because they are more common in English as spoken in Nigeria, where key elements of model training often occur.)

The aforementioned study also looks at preliminary data from 2024, which indicates that AI writing assistance is only becoming more common. Is this a crisis for modern scholarship, or a boon for academic productivity?

Who should take credit for AI writing?

Many people are worried by the use of AI in academic papers. Indeed, the practice has been described as “ contaminating ” scholarly literature.

Some argue that using AI output amounts to plagiarism. If your ideas are copy-pasted from ChatGPT, it is questionable whether you really deserve credit for them.

But there are important differences between “plagiarising” text authored by humans and text authored by AI. Those who plagiarise humans’ work receive credit for ideas that ought to have gone to the original author.

By contrast, it is debatable whether AI systems like ChatGPT can have ideas, let alone deserve credit for them. An AI tool is more like your phone’s autocomplete function than a human researcher.

The question of bias

Another worry is that AI outputs might be biased in ways that could seep into the scholarly record. Infamously, older language models tended to portray people who are female, black and/or gay in distinctly unflattering ways, compared with people who are male, white and/or straight.

This kind of bias is less pronounced in the current version of ChatGPT.

However, other studies have found a different kind of bias in ChatGPT and other large language models : a tendency to reflect a left-liberal political ideology.

Any such bias could subtly distort scholarly writing produced using these tools.

The hallucination problem

The most serious worry relates to a well-known limitation of generative AI systems: that they often make serious mistakes.

For example, when I asked ChatGPT-4 to generate an ASCII image of a mushroom, it provided me with the following output.

It then confidently told me I could use this image of a “mushroom” for my own purposes.

These kinds of overconfident mistakes have been referred to as “ AI hallucinations ” and “ AI bullshit ”. While it is easy to spot that the above ASCII image looks nothing like a mushroom (and quite a bit like a snail), it may be much harder to identify any mistakes ChatGPT makes when surveying scientific literature or describing the state of a philosophical debate.

Unlike (most) humans, AI systems are fundamentally unconcerned with the truth of what they say. If used carelessly, their hallucinations could corrupt the scholarly record.

Should AI-produced text be banned?

One response to the rise of text generators has been to ban them outright. For example, Science – one of the world’s most influential academic journals – disallows any use of AI-generated text .

I see two problems with this approach.

The first problem is a practical one: current tools for detecting AI-generated text are highly unreliable. This includes the detector created by ChatGPT’s own developers, which was taken offline after it was found to have only a 26% accuracy rate (and a 9% false positive rate ). Humans also make mistakes when assessing whether something was written by AI.

It is also possible to circumvent AI text detectors. Online communities are actively exploring how to prompt ChatGPT in ways that allow the user to evade detection. Human users can also superficially rewrite AI outputs, effectively scrubbing away the traces of AI (like its overuse of the words “commendable”, “meticulously” and “intricate”).

The second problem is that banning generative AI outright prevents us from realising these technologies’ benefits. Used well, generative AI can boost academic productivity by streamlining the writing process. In this way, it could help further human knowledge. Ideally, we should try to reap these benefits while avoiding the problems.

The problem is poor quality control, not AI

The most serious problem with AI is the risk of introducing unnoticed errors, leading to sloppy scholarship. Instead of banning AI, we should try to ensure that mistaken, implausible or biased claims cannot make it onto the academic record.

After all, humans can also produce writing with serious errors, and mechanisms such as peer review often fail to prevent its publication.

We need to get better at ensuring academic papers are free from serious mistakes, regardless of whether these mistakes are caused by careless use of AI or sloppy human scholarship. Not only is this more achievable than policing AI usage, it will improve the standards of academic research as a whole.

This would be (as ChatGPT might say) a commendable and meticulously intricate solution.

• Artificial intelligence (AI)
• Academic journals
• Academic publishing
• Hallucinations
• Scholarly publishing
• Academic writing
• Large language models
• Generative AI

Lecturer / Senior Lecturer - Marketing

Head, School of Psychology

Senior Lecturer (ED) Ballarat

Senior Research Fellow - Women's Health Services

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

• Manuscript Preparation

A Must-see for Researchers! How to Ensure Inclusivity in Your Scientific Writing

• 4 minute read

Table of Contents

Highly influential research findings have several real-world implications that affect the public’s perception of individuals and communities to some extent. The way science is communicated shapes people’s behavior, interactions, and even related policies. As a result, in recent years there has been a growing recognition of the need to foster inclusive language within scholarly communication, which can help avoid bias or misunderstanding.  

Researchers, especially the younger generation, are becoming increasingly aware of the significance of using inclusive language in academic writing. This approach helps create a collaborative global academic landscape, while fostering respect for diverse perspectives. It is also conducive to the wide dissemination of papers and supports researchers in their long-term academic endeavors.  

This article will explain why and how to use inclusive language in your manuscript. Also, it will help researchers improve their ability to choose words with precision when writing by providing examples of appropriate inclusive terms. Let’s have a look!  

1. Referring to Persons with Disabilities¹  

When referring to someone with a disability, it is important to focus on the person first, not highlight their condition . Avoid using the terms “disabled person” or “handicapped person.” Instead, use person-first language, such as “a person with disability,” “a person with hearing loss,” etc.  

Additionally, when referring to individuals without disabilities, avoid using terms such as “normal” or “typical.” Instead, use phrases like “individuals without disabilities” or “people without disabilities.”  

Example of inclusive language : Students with disabilities often encounter distinct challenges in academic settings. These can range from physical barriers like inaccessible buildings to difficulties accessing educational materials in suitable formats. In contrast, students without disabilities typically navigate the educational environment with fewer hindrances.  

2. Using Gendered Nouns  

Gendered nouns such as “man” or words ending in “-man” can exclude certain groups, so it is best to avoid them² . Fortunately, they can be easily substituted with neutral terms . For instance, instead of writing “man”, write “person” or “individual” and instead of writing “mankind,” write “humanity” or “human beings.”  

When discussing people’s occupational roles, using neutral language is essential. For example, instead of writing “policeman,” write “police officer,” and instead of writing “chairman,” write “chairperson.”  

Example of gendered noun use:  The chairman oversees the company’s operations.  

Example of inclusive language:  The chairperson oversees the company’s operations.  

3. Using Pronouns  

When you know a person’s preferred pronoun, it is easy to incorporate it into writing. For example, most people use the pronouns he/him or she/her. However, using pronouns can become tricky in neutral or ambiguous contexts. In the past, it was common to use the  generic he   in these situations³ . However, it is best to avoid this practice as it can be exclusionary .  

Here are some tips to avoid the  generic he³ :  

Don’t only use he/his, add she/her  

For example, do not write:  An early career researcher needs mentors. He can learn the secrets to making an impact in academia with someone more experienced.  

Instead, write:  An early career researcher needs mentors. He or she can learn the secrets to making an impact in academia with someone more experienced.  

Eliminate the pronoun if possible  

For example, do not write:  We returned his manuscript two days after submission.  

Instead, write:  We returned the manuscript two days after submission.  

Use a plural term  

For example, do not write:  When an author revises his manuscript , he should consider the feedback provided by the peer reviewers.  

Instead, write:  When authors revise their manuscripts , they should consider the feedback provided by the peer reviewers.  

4. Describing Age  

As a general rule, refrain from mentioning a person’s age unless it is absolutely necessary for the context . In scientific writing, it is acceptable to use broad terms , such as infants, children, young adults, or older adults, to categorize age groups⁴ . This approach maintains inclusivity and respects individuals regardless of their age.   

Conclusion  

Embracing inclusive language in scholarly communication fosters a more welcoming environment for scholars from diverse backgrounds. It ensures that everyone, regardless of their life experiences, can equally benefit from advancements in science. It is worth noting that inclusive language constantly evolves with social development, which poses a great challenge for authors in terms of their English skills and the ability to pay attention to social trends.  

If you would like to achieve more efficient and inclusive expression in your papers, please choose Elsevier Language Services . Our professional editors, all native English speakers, with editing experience in more than 100 disciplines, can help you achieve professional, authentic, and inclusive academic expression in your papers, improve the chances of successful publication, and achieve long-term academic success.  

References:  

• University of Idaho Inclusive Writing Guide. (n.d.). https://www.uidaho.edu/brand/print-digital-content/inclusive-writing-guide  
• UNC-Chapel Hill Writing Center. (2023, December 8). Gender-Inclusive Language – The Writing Center. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/gender-inclusive-language/  
• Leu, P. (2020, July 2). Academic Writing: How do we use gender-inclusive language in academic writing? – Explorations in English Language Learning. Explorations in English Language Learning. https://englishexplorations.check.uni-hamburg.de/academic-writing-how-do-we-use-gender-inclusive-language-in-academic-writing/  
• Inclusive writing | York St John University. (n.d.). York St John University. https://www.yorksj.ac.uk/brand/our-writing-style/inclusive-writing/#age  

• Manuscript Review

Essential for High-Quality Paper Editing: Three Tips to Efficient Spellchecks

Page-Turner Articles are More Than Just Good Arguments: Be Mindful of Tone and Structure!

You may also like.

Make Hook, Line, and Sinker: The Art of Crafting Engaging Introductions

Can Describing Study Limitations Improve the Quality of Your Paper?

A Guide to Crafting Shorter, Impactful Sentences in Academic Writing

6 Steps to Write an Excellent Discussion in Your Manuscript

How to Write Clear and Crisp Civil Engineering Papers? Here are 5 Key Tips to Consider

The Clear Path to An Impactful Paper: ②

The Essentials of Writing to Communicate Research in Medicine

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• 21 May 2024

Pay researchers to spot errors in published papers

• Malte Elson 0

Malte Elson is an associate professor of the psychology of digitalization at the University of Bern, Switzerland.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

You have full access to this article via your institution.

In 2023, Google awarded a total of US$10 million to researchers who found vulnerabilities in its products. Why? Because allowing errors to go undetected could be much costlier. Data breaches could lead to refund claims, reduced customer trust or legal liability.

It’s not just private technology companies that invest in such ‘bug bounty’ programmes. Between 2016 and 2021, the US Department of Defense awarded more than US$650,000 to people who found weaknesses in its networks .

Just as many industries devote hefty funding to incentivizing people to find and report bugs and glitches, so the science community should reward the detection and correction of errors in the scientific literature. In our industry, too, the costs of undetected errors are staggering.

Retractions are increasing, but not enough

That’s why I have joined with meta-scientist Ian Hussey at the University of Bern and psychologist Ruben Arslan at Leipzig University in Germany to pilot a bug-bounty programme for science, funded by the University of Bern. Our project, Estimating the Reliability and Robustness of Research (ERROR), pays specialists to check highly cited published papers, starting with the social and behavioural sciences (see go.nature.com/4bmlvkj ). Our reviewers are paid a base rate of up to 1,000 Swiss francs (around US$1,100) for each paper they check, and a bonus for any errors they find. The bigger the error, the greater the reward — up to a maximum of 2,500 francs.

Authors who let us scrutinize their papers are compensated, too: 250 francs to cover the work needed to prepare files or answer reviewer queries, and a bonus 250 francs if no errors (or only minor ones) are found in their work.

ERROR launched in February and will run for at least four years. So far, we have sent out almost 60 invitations, and 13 sets of authors have agreed to have their papers assessed. One review has been completed , revealing minor errors.

I hope that the project will demonstrate the value of systematic processes to detect errors in published research. I am convinced that such systems are needed, because current checks are insufficient.

Structure peer review to make it more robust

Unpaid peer reviewers are overburdened , and have little incentive to painstakingly examine survey responses, comb through lists of DNA sequences or cell lines, or go through computer code line by line. Mistakes frequently slip through. And researchers have little to gain personally from sifting through published papers looking for errors. There is no financial compensation for highlighting errors , and doing so can see people marked out as troublemakers.

Yet failing to keep abreast of this issue comes at a huge cost. Imagine a single PhD student building their work on an erroneous finding. In Switzerland, their cumulative salary alone will run to six figures. Flawed research that is translated into health care, policymaking or engineering can harm people. And there are opportunity costs — for every grant awarded to a project unknowingly building on errors, another project is not pursued.

Like technology companies, stakeholders in science must realize that making error detection and correction part of the scientific landscape is a sound investment.

Funders, for instance, have a vested interest in ensuring that the money that they distribute as grants is not wasted. Publishers stand to improve their reputations by ensuring that some of their resources are spent on quality management. And, by supporting these endeavours, scientific associations could help to foster a culture in which acknowledgement of errors is considered normal — or even commendable — and not a mark of shame.

How ‘research impact bonds’ could transform science funding

I know that ERROR is a bold experiment. Some researchers might have qualms. I’ve been asked whether reviewers might exaggerate the gravity of errors in pursuit of a large bug bounty, or attempt to smear a colleague they dislike. It’s possible, but hyperbole would be a gamble, given that all reviewer reports are published on our website and are not anonymized. And we guard against exaggeration. A ‘recommender’ from among ERROR’s staff and advisory board members — none of whom receive a bounty — acts as an intermediary, weighing up reviewer findings and author responses before deciding on the payout.

Another fair criticism is that ERROR’s paper selection will be biased. The ERROR team picks papers that are highly cited and checks them only if the authors agree to it. Authors who suspect their work might not withstand scrutiny could be less likely to opt in. But selecting papers at random would introduce a different bias, because we would be able to assess only those for which some minimal amount of data and code was freely available. And we’d spend precious resources checking some low-impact papers that only a few people build research on.

My goal is not to prove that a bug-bounty programme is the best mechanism for correcting errors, or that it is applicable to all science. Rather, I want to start a conversation about the need for dedicated investment in error detection and correction. There are alternatives to bug bounties — for instance, making error detection its own viable career path and hiring full-time scientific staff to check each institute’s papers. Of course, care would be needed to ensure that such schemes benefited researchers around the world equally.

Scholars can’t expect errors to go away by themselves. Science can be self-correcting — but only if we invest in making it so.

Nature 629 , 730 (2024)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01465-y

Reprints and permissions

Competing Interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Related Articles

• Scientific community
• Research management
• Peer review

I had my white colleagues walk in a Black student’s shoes for a day

Career Q&A 28 MAY 24

Adopt stricter regulation to stop ‘critical mineral’ greenwashing

Correspondence 28 MAY 24

Changemakers — Nature’s new series celebrates champions of inclusion in science

Editorial 28 MAY 24

Researcher parents are paying a high price for conference travel — here’s how to fix it

Career Column 27 MAY 24

How researchers in remote regions handle the isolation

Career Feature 24 MAY 24

Guidelines for academics aim to lessen ethical pitfalls in generative-AI use

Nature Index 22 MAY 24

Who will make AlphaFold3 open source? Scientists race to crack AI model

News 23 MAY 24

Plagiarism in peer-review reports could be the ‘tip of the iceberg’

Nature Index 01 MAY 24

Algorithm ranks peer reviewers by reputation — but critics warn of bias

Nature Index 25 APR 24

Assistant, Associate or Full Professor

The McLaughlin Research Institute and Touro University – Montana campus invite applications for open rank faculty positions.

McLaughlin Research Institute

Postdoctoral Associate- Neuroscience

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Call for applications- junior and senior scientists

The BORDEAUX INSTITUTE OF ONCOLOGY (BRIC U1312, https://www.bricbordeaux.com/) is seeking to recruit new junior and senior researchers

Bordeaux (Ville), Gironde (FR)

INSERM - U1312 BRIC

Postdoctoral Scholar - Organic Synthesis

Memphis, Tennessee

The University of Tennessee Health Science Center (UTHSC)

Postdoctoral Scholar - Chemical Biology

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies