Writing biomedical manuscripts part II: standard elements and common errors.

Abstract

It is incumbent on, satisfying to, and rewarding for, researchers to have their work published. Many workers are denied this satisfaction because of their inability to secure acceptance after what they consider a good research. Several reasons account for rejection or delay of manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. A research poorly conceptualised and/or conducted will fail to fly but poor writing up of the completed work accounts for a greater majority of manuscripts that get rejected. The chances of manuscript acceptance can be increased by paying attention to the standard elements and avoiding correcting the common errors that make for the rejection of manuscripts. Cultivating the habit of structuring every department of the manuscript greatly improves chances of acceptance. The final paper should follow the universally accepted pattern of aim , introduction , methods, results, and discussion. The sequence of putting the paper together is different from the order in the final form. Follow a pattern that starts with the Tables and figures for the results section , followed by final version of the methods section. The title and abstract should be about the last to be written in the final version of the manuscript. You need to have results sorted out early as the rest of what you will write is largely dictated by your results. Revise the work several times and get co - authors and third parties to help read it over. To succeed follow the universal rules of writing and those of the target journal rules while avoiding those errors that are easily amenable to correction before you submit your manuscript.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 10 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.