The Pathway to Publishing: A Guide to Quantitative Writing in the Health Sciences

Front matter

Stephen Luby Dorothy L. Southern

The Pathway

to Publishing: A Guide

Preface

Stephen Luby is a medical epidemiologist who has worked for over 25 years conducting public health research in low-income countries. This effort has included developing the scientific writing skills of early career researchers whom he collaborated with. This guide grew out of his review of dozens of draft manuscripts from novice scientists in Pakistan in the mid-1990s. To avoid writing the same critique into multiple manuscripts, he developed a short list of “most common errors” with explanations of how they should be addressed. This allowed him to refer to manuscript errors more quickly by number, and allowed writers to see a more complete description of the problem than might be typed out when he recognized a familiar error in a new manuscript.

Over the years, these “most common errors” multiplied. While working in Bangladesh, Stephen began collaborating with Dorothy Southern, who edited and organized this rather unwieldy list and integrated explanations and examples from a number of different sources. As Dorothy and Stephen recognized new errors, they incorporated them into the guide. Dorothy also worked to broaden the document to describe the mentor-orientated approach to scientific writing that they promoted in the Centre for Communicable Diseases at the International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b).

Neither of us is now living in Bangladesh, but we both remain involved teaching scientific writing to early career scientists, especially those working in low- and middle-income countries. We have chosen to publish this as an open access guide so that it can be downloaded at no charge by scientists working in low-resource settings.

The Pathway to Publishing: A Guide to Quantitative Writing in the Health Sciences focuses on the unique format and data presentation of quantitative studies in the health sciences. It aims to support and encourage scientists who are actively engaged in quantitative research to write effectively, and so increase the sharing of important scientific results. Since this guide grew out of training public health scientists in Pakistan and Bangladesh, many of the examples are from this context, though the principles apply broadly to clear scientific writing.

vi Preface

Bringing scientific work to publication is a group effort. Scientific writing, like the broader scientific enterprise, is a collaboration based on the exchange of ideas. While this guide is primarily focused on providing support to first authors, it also describes the roles and responsibilities of co-authors. Although the specification of these roles was originally articulated to support the management of scientific writing at icddr,b in Bangladesh, they remain appropriate principles for the Center for Innovation for Global Health at Stanford University and for other collaborative scientific groups.

We hope this guide helps you share more of your useful findings and ideas with international scientific readers.

Stephen Luby Dorothy L. Southern

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to our many colleagues who provided feedback on prior descriptions of these errors.

We particularly appreciate Laura Kwong’s contribution to the section on plagiarism (Error 2.2.2), Robert Fontaine who contributed much of the ideas and examples for Error 7.10 (table layout that impairs comparison), and Robert H. Schmidt who provided the text for the authorship scorecard (Appendix 8).

Part I Introduction 1.1

The Pathway to Publishing

1.3

1.4 The Scientific Writing Style

Develop a Framing Document: csc cersrsrrirsiciress Use the “Mast Common Errors” 5... ccasesosbasaseiass Understand Authorship and Mentoring Responsibilities. . .

lal

1:32 The Peer Review Prmceseciiincccdeaddk en davandacans

Part II Most Common Errors 2.1

2.2 Insufficient Citations

2.4

PARA

Not Providing a Reference to Support an Observation .... 2.2.2 Plagiarism

Weak CHAON Ss i.65.5-55.645-0e0 AAA Ea

2.3.1

Citing a Secondary Source: 2556054 s4scesegeeaeasw ees

2.3.2 Presenting Conclusions Rather Than Data from Referentes. cuc.4 k ce eb dee ee Sh ac PEEK ai

2.4.1

Contents

2.5 Not Using atada Draft Manuscript Form . af

2.8

2.9 Errors in | Res oning .

2.9.1 29,2

31 fT 3.2 Confusing the Role of fottioduet

Discussion 3.3 Not Writing the Methods Section in Cronoleg ii 35 a tai But Not mii One

3.6 ve Theates of ‘Change

3.11.1 Recommending a Ma: 3.11.2 Ignoring Incenti sth eg ae aes 3.11.3 Assuming Weak States Can Implement. T T

a. 12 ag a Foamea Introduction a¢RE aes Seer ere ee

3.1 sis Specif ying Soia Uh / í or 3.16 Presenting Rationale in the Last Sentence of the iniyduoion OF i Aa Aci

Using All Capit a Let 4. 2 Capitalizing Non per Nouns. . 4.5 Failure to Spell Out an Isolated Numeral < c10.

TERS TTETETTET

Contents

4.6

4.14 Uninformative Decunent NAMES occ g cn be eeewdead ee ee

Using ee ae in the Discussion. 0 ces eawes eas

5.8 Us ng e with pene Sbai in Pace of Verbs Wandin aes 5.9 Using Different Terms for the Same Object or the Same Idea ....

Contents

6.19 Describing a Test as a 85 Recording Scientific Data, cosi 0... ee 87 7.1 Using Statistics in Place of the Study Cuesta k to Tiie Results.. 87 72 Not Presenting the Core Data 5 sis..4ecssveavswraesnva 89 7.3 Using Too Many Decimal Places 90 7.4 Using Too Few Decimal Places . 91 7.5 Using Incomplete Headings for Tab 4 91 7.6 Imbalance Between Table and Narrative anaes

OURS aware sa deradsweadioeedeaaena ta eaten: 92 7.6.1 Too Little Nitrate Explaining the Tables - riisnwindes SA 7.6.2 Too Much Narrative Explaining 1 92

7.6.3 Presenting Results in Narrative that Would Be Clearer a nor ne ee er ree ere “eengwtanthonge “Be 93 94 94 95 96 ia 98

alue in a Baseline Tal ie of a Randomized

Controlled Trial ooon irrtegneknate 99 7.14 Using Nonstandard Footnote Syinboles in ‘Tables. teriiesatenees 100 eV 105 105 106 106 107 108 110 110 111 112 112

Contents xiii

8.12 Reusing an Email Thread when Circulating a Revised Manuscript. .c5acci0assoecaceeade ree dreaveswu es 113 8.15 Not Providing Co-authors a Copy 8.16 Not Keeping Co-authors Informed of Discussion with Journal EONO Giant de edi eh pa Ce ea eee hiwerreeeseiweesaken 115 8.17 Emailing Draft Manuscripts with Figures That Are Not COMPTES s,s ica cde e ou Leper beds Seed Senysaeawesaess 115 A. “Bullets onthe Wales scdonacteetetcgeitescheededendkaded 119 9.3 Too Much Space Between Bullets ic: csccess ceca doug nadeemes 122 OS: Chatu icpontchoctidebes eve begiscbivkenadaekatanted 125 Of sea Pies Rath kee chao ieentr eis oies eee hee 128 9.8 Using Vertical Bars When Horizontal Bars Would Communicate Betiet, .cpduccaceteesdviwnarwnne ed oes 131 9.9 Copying a Manuscript Figure Instead of Developing a Custom CLO ee rere ee eer eee kee eee ere er eee 133 9.13 Including a Pinal “Thank You" Slides ce rrieriirssriireereris 139

REEERENCES) ceruetan S don boda ae Shs ae es ee See ease 185

Part I Introduction

Chapter 1 A Introduction Geek for 1.1 The Pathway to Publishing

Scientific writing is a key skill for researchers. Scientific writing develops critical thinking, helps scientists connect their local results with global understanding, and helps scientists identify appropriate next questions to explore. Increased scientific writing capacity within a research group allows more study results to be shared with the practitioner community and policy makers. More writers mean more work gets published so all members of the scientific team benefit.

However, there are several barriers to publishing: a lack of focus in framing the research question, difficulty in explaining why the study is important (the “so what?” question), inexperience in interpreting data and drawing out its implications, unfamiliarity with the requirements of scientific writing formats, and a lack of clarity and conciseness in the use of English language.

The pathway to publishing, especially when it involves collecting original data, is a long process that begins with the development of a research idea and typically requires years to unfold. Often, a scientific writer’s first opportunity as an author will come on a project that was initiated by other scientists. The pathway to publishing process (Fig. 1.1) describes the documents that a researcher might be required to write and the steps along the way to becoming a first author. Sometimes, researchers will address questions of previously collected data or be dispatched by government authorities to conduct an outbreak investigation. In these circumstances, the scientists will not have to work through the long process of securing funding and will begin to work sooner on data analysis and writing.

© The Author(s) 2022 3 S. Luby, D. L. Southern, The Pathway to Publishing: A Guide to Quantitative Writing in the Health Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-98175-4_1

Develop research question(s)

Develop a first draft concept note outlining the objectives with broadly summarized methods (Appendix 1: Concept note outline)

After co-investigator review, develop a revised concept note including sample size and budget (Appendix 2: Concept note example)

After internal review, develop a funding proposal

IF FUNDED

Draft a study protocol, based on the funding proposal. (Appendix 3: Critical questions for protocol development)

Secure review from all co-investigators (and from external reviewers if required by the institutional review board)

After responding to all comments and securing co-author approval, submit for institutional review board review

Once approved, implement research activities and collect data

Analyze the data and construct draft tables and figures for the manuscript Share this framing document with your senior author (Appendix 4: Framing document)

(Appendix 5: Flowchart for review of scientific documents)

Develop a high-level outline. Share with co-authors (Appendix 6: High level outline) (Appendix 7: High level outline example)

After responding to all comments, develop the first draft manuscript

Circulate to senior author

Respond to senior author review

When senior author approves, circulate draft to all co-authors

Revise manuscript, responding to all co-author comments

Send revised draft back to co-authors for further review

Revise repeatedly until all co-authors agree the manuscript is ready for journal submission

Submit for institutional clearance

Submit to appropriate journal

Receive peer reviewers’ comments and respond appropriately

Re-submit to journal

Congratulations on your first author published manuscript!

Fig. 1.1 The pathway to publishing

1.2 Think-Before-You-Write Approach 5 1.2 Think-Before-You-Write Approach

To think critically about and start writing any type of scientific paper, use the six-step “think-before-you-write” approach.

1.2.1 Develop a Framing Document

The role of a framing document is to assess if the proposed results and analysis provide a sufficient basis for a useful manuscript. A single study commonly generates multiple manuscripts. A framing document helps to clarify which results belong in which manuscript. A framing document provides early feedback to ensure that the author is on a productive path. Even if there will only be a single manuscript coming out of a study, a framing document helps to clarify the subset of all the data that the study generated that should be included in a manuscript.

The framing document is primarily a communication to be shared among coauthors familiar with the study. It need not include the rationale, a detailed methodological explanation, or any discussion. Think of it as the draft tables and figures for a manuscript with a bit of explanation to clarify framing.

It is however important that the framing document be built upon sound data. So first, double-check the quality of your data and your analysis. If you need help, consult a statistician for input. It is a much better learning experience for the author to conduct the statistical analysis with the coaching of a statistician rather than having the statistician conduct the analysis.

A framing document template is provided in Appendix 4. The framing requires an explicit statement of the objective of the manuscript. A manuscript’s objective may be closely aligned or quite different from the objective of the study. The main results should be specified if they either are a simple number or are not readily understood from reviewing the tables and figures.

1.2.2 Focus on the High-Level Outline

After your senior author and other co-authors have confirmed that the analyses included in your framing document would support a manuscript, the next step is to develop a brief high-level outline of the manuscript.

The role of the high-level outline is to sketch out the major components of the manuscript that will support the data analysis included in the framing document. This is an outline that should be no longer than 1500 words (excluding the tables, figures, and references). Full sentences are not necessary. A format is provided in Appendix 6.

Keeping the document short helps the author focus on the key elements of the manuscript. It provides opportunity for early input on the scope and framing of the key ideas. Because a short document takes less time for authors to produce and less time for co-authors to review, it generates prompt feedback on key ideas and so supports a faster path to publication. Using this approach prevents authors investing weeks or months developing full draft manuscripts that are off target with pages and pages of prose that need to be discarded.

High-level outline benefits

For writers For reviewers

Bullet points focus on thinking skills rather than writing Content is easy to see and to skills understand

Provides framework to guide the thinking process Short, concise format

Allows continuous input and revision Critical results stand out Saves many hours developing manuscript sections that will | Easy to change the framing if not be included necessary

1.2.3 Use the “Most Common Errors”

Use the “most common errors” listed in A Guide to Quantitative Writing in the Health Sciences as a method for reviewing and editing the first and all subsequent drafts of a scientific paper. All the errors listed in the guide have been repeatedly identified in draft scientific papers written by early career writers. These errors range from problems with punctuation, referencing, and data presentation to not understanding the difference between association and causality. Examples of the “most common errors” are provided along with alternative or better options. Reviewing a paper using the “most common errors” has several benefits for both the writer and the reviewer.

The “most common errors” benefits

For writers For reviewers |

Eight categories of errors Covers most errors Provides more detailed explanations than | Quick, easy system a reviewer could provide on every point | Saves time. No need to repeat explanations

Real illustrative examples Puts the responsibility on the writer to find the Systematic learning process corresponding link to the error and to read and learn about it

1.2.4 Understand Authorship and Mentoring Responsibilities

Scientific writing is a collaborative effort. The framing document and high-level outline provide an initial opportunity to identify the first author and co-authors. Inclusion on an author line indicates one’s contribution to scientific work. Authorship is an important professional credential. The norms for the ordering of authors varies

1.2 Think-Before-You-Write Approach 7 by discipline. In economics, authors are listed alphabetically. In the life sciences, the position of first author, second author, and last author carries specific responsibilities outlined below.

First Author

Conducts the analysis but may receive substantive input/support from statistical colleagues on complex elements of the analysis

Constructs the framing document with tables and figures and shares with senior author

After revision and approval from senior author, shares the framing document with tables and figures with co-authors

Drafts a <1500-word, high-level outline

After revision and approval from senior author, seeks input from co-authors Develops multiple high-level outline drafts by responding to all reviewers’ comments

Drafts the manuscript

Follows all the instructions for a draft manuscript as noted in Error 2.5 (not using standard draft manuscript form)

After revision and approval from senior author, seeks input from co-authors Develops multiple drafts of manuscript by responding thoroughly and thoughtfully to co-authors’ feedback (avoids Error 8.2)

If a co-author is a government official, the first author:

— Asks the co-author about the process for securing government approval for manuscript submission — Provides the necessary documents to request approval

Once senior author and co-authors agree, submits the manuscript to a journal Circulates submitted draft

Keeps co-authors informed of all progress on the submission

Circulates response from editors and comments from reviewers to all co-authors Drafts response to reviewers’ comments

Circulates response to reviewers’ comments along with a marked-up version of the manuscript (to highlight changes) to all co-authors for feedback

Senior Author

Usually, the senior author is a topic expert who has published first authored work related to the topic of the paper. Leveraging this knowledge and expertise, the senior author ensures that the paper is framed to make a meaningful contribution to the scientific literature.

The senior author is listed last on the manuscript and often serves as the corresponding author.

When the first author is an early career scientist, the senior author assumes the role of primary reviewer and assists the first author in:

— Drafting the author line — Selecting an appropriate journal

— Deciding who should be the corresponding author — Identifying external reviewers for journal submission (though first author should generate candidates; see Error 8.9)

— Performs the reviews of the initial drafts of the framing document with tables and figures

— Decides when the framing document with tables and figures is sufficiently developed that it would benefit from review by all co-authors

— Performs the reviews of the initial drafts of the high-level outline

— Decides when the high-level outline is sufficiently developed that it would benefit from review by all co-authors

— Reviews the initial drafts of the draft manuscript

— Decides when the draft manuscript is sufficiently developed that it would benefit from review by all co-authors

— Decides when the draft manuscript is ready for submission to a journal

— Assists the first author in finalizing the author line. For example, if a proposed co-author was included in the initial draft but never provided any input to the draft manuscript and so does not meet the international criteria for authorship, this co-author would generally be dropped from the author line

— Carefully reviews the first author’s responses to external reviewers’ critiques

— Decides when the revised manuscript and responses to external reviewers’ critiques are sufficient and the manuscript is ready for resubmission

Second Author

The second author is generally the person who made the next largest contribution to the manuscript after the first and senior author although this designation is sometimes used to denote particularly important institutional collaborators.

The particular role of the second author should be discussed with the senior author. The second author may have additional responsibilities in addition to standard co-author roles including:

— Drafting sections of the manuscript Performing the role of primary reviewer — Functioning as senior author Functioning as the corresponding author

Co-author

Provides thorough, substantive review of the high-level outline

Provides thorough, substantive review of the draft manuscript

Drafts specific sections of the manuscript in one’s particular area of expertise and contribution as requested by the first or senior author

Ensures that the elements of the study that are within their area of responsibility and expertise are accurately and appropriately reflected in the manuscript Ensures that framing of scientific arguments and references to the literature that are within their area of expertise are sound and appropriate

Assesses if they meet the criteria of co-authorship

1.2 Think-Before-You-Write Approach 9 e Assesses if they are sufficiently comfortable with (1) the quality of the work, (2) the integrity of study implementation and analysis, and (3) the conclusions that it reaches that they are willing to accept public responsibility for its content

e Co-authors can opt out of inclusion on the authorship line during any of the drafts, but they should do so before submission to a journal. It is unprofessional to remove one’s name after submission because it signals to the journal editor that you were not consulted prior to submission

Getting feedback from the senior author, second author, and co-authors is crucial to ensure that a scientific paper clearly describes a valid methodology and communicates convincing results.

In the best-case scenario, all co-authors discuss and agree on the responsibilities and contributions early on, preferably during the development of the protocol when the roles of the investigators are specified. Practically, however, which specific findings will ultimately support a manuscript and so how many manuscripts will be written and how each should be framed are usually impossible to anticipate before the data are analyzed. In addition, the composition of the scientific team and interest and availability of potential authors is often different by the time the data are available compared with the original plan, and so authorship typically needs to be revisited.

Once the data are available, the project principal investigator reviews the earlier planning around authorship and leads a discussion with co-investigators that revisits the earlier conversation and works to reach decisions about framing and assignment of first author responsibilities. Usually, there is no shortage of first author writing opportunities. Principal investigators are commonly eager to identify co-investigators willing to lead a manuscript. Often, project co-investigators will suggest a manuscript that they are particularly interested in leading.

Gift Authorship Assigning someone authorship or designating someone a first or a senior author when they have not completed these roles is dishonest. Sometimes, a skilled author views granting another person first authorship when they have not discharged the responsibilities of first authorship an appropriate gift for other contributions to the project. This may seem like a generous expression of gratitude, but it is a rather patronizing hollow token. It is a much more valuable gift for seasoned authors to invest the time to develop less experienced writers and to work closely with them so that they can accomplish the first author responsibilities and have legitimately earned the role. This process generates skills that allow the new author to advance their scientific writing career, a genuinely useful gift.

Authorship Conflicts Conflicts over whom to include as an author and their position on the author line are common. Sometimes, a person who was influential in securing funding or in providing institutional permission to participate in the study insists on inclusion in the author line and/or insists on being named a senior or first author (Error 8.3). One way to reduce these conflicts is to include language in institutional agreements and in the protocol that international standards of authorship will be used to determine authorship contribution. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors provide clear guidelines for authorship (www.icmje. org) (Error 8.3). It is helpful to enter conversations with an author line framed using standards for assigning authorship aligned with the International Council of Medical Journal Editors or other authoritative source. The authorship scorecard (Appendix 8) provides a useful quantitative tool to develop and defend an author list.

1.2.5 Structure the Writing and Feedback Process

Constructive criticism and focused comments from co-authors are crucial to help a first author refine and improve their work. Your initial and subsequent drafts should be reviewed first by the senior author or primary reviewer and then by your other co-authors (Appendix 5).

First authors should share each of the documents they have drafted: the framing document, the high-level outline, or a draft manuscript. They should expect multiple reviews and revisions but in a culture of trust and openness. Reviewers should provide timely feedback. They may deploy the “most common errors” to highlight areas in need of further work.

A review and feedback schedule should be agreed on to ensure the pathway to publishing can be covered in the shortest time possible. Long delays in giving comments and suggestions to improve a scientific paper can de-motivate the writer and delay the dissemination of meaningful research. A suggested time frame for review is as follows:

Structured feedback timeline

Type of document Reviewed within Concept note 5 working days Protocol 5 working days

l Framing document 5 working days Conference abstract 3 working days

Poster 5 working days High-level outline 10 working days Draft manuscript 10 working days Reponses to journal editors and reviewers 5 working days

The first author also has a responsibility to continue to dedicate time regularly to the manuscript. Writing well enough so that editors and reviewers agree that your work is a novel and useful contribution to the global scientific literature requires substantial ongoing time commitment from the first author. The biggest difference between people who are authors and people who aspire to be authors but do not achieve this aspiration is that authors dedicate substantial time to writing. A long delay in developing the next draft of a paper means the article loses its developmental momentum and potentially even its relevance to the global scientific discussion.

1.2 Think-Before-You-Write Approach 11

Co-authors usually have multiple ongoing projects and will move their attention to other papers. Although a strict schedule for producing revised drafts is difficult to prescribe because substantive critiques may require a deep and critical review of the literature, more in-depth statistical analysis, or additional laboratory work or data collection, writers should commit substantial time each week to revising and improving their drafts.

1.2.6 Responding to Co-author Comments

Remember, it normally takes 10 working days to get all the reviewers’ comments on a draft manuscript. Indeed, it is a good practice when circulating a draft manuscript to request input by a specific date. Ten working days is a reasonable timeline. If you provide less time than this, you risk communicating a lack of respect for the time of your co-authors. Similarly, when you are a co-author, it is a responsibility to provide input within a reasonable time frame so that the development of the manuscript is not delayed.

Read all reviewers’ comments carefully before starting to revise to get an overall picture of how others interpreted your paper. Oftentimes, it is useful to read the comments all through once to get a general idea of the criticism (and feel the pain that not every reader loved every decision you made). Then after a day or two, go back through each of the comments carefully. Often, there are a number of major changes you will want to make to your manuscript. We recommend implementing those changes in a revised manuscript. After you have implemented the major changes, you can then proceed with line by line to comments and suggestions.

When preparing for a line-by-line revision, it is useful to consider the comments from all of the reviewers. This may be complicated because some reviewers will provide comments on the version you circulated, ignoring comments made by others. Oftentimes, reviewers will provide comments on a version that others have already commented on. Sometimes, this creates divergent drafts with different reviewers responding to a version of the manuscript with a different set of previous reviewers.

The Compare feature of Microsoft Word can combine various drafts so that all of the comments are together on each page. This can be helpful, but sometimes, this squeezes so many comments on a page that you can only see the first line of the comment. One tip to make these readable is to insert page breaks at frequent intervals so that for each section of the manuscript that you are reviewing, all of the reviewer comments are readable.

Combining drafts will not always work well because the Compare feature requires that you accept one set of revisions before adding other drafts. This conflates your original text with reviewers’ revisions. In addition, if some reviewers provide handwritten comments on a printed or scanned version, there is no direct way to assemble these into a single document. In these cases, you can take the various versions of the commented manuscript and either print each one out or display them on multiple computer screens. The goal is to be able to easily read every reviewer comment on a sentence or paragraph before making a decision on how to revise it.

Of course, not all comments or suggestions will be useful or even correct. You, as first author, need to make the decision about which comments and suggestions to accept and how to revise. If there is a major comment that you do not agree with, you should explain why either by inserting a comment (using track changes) or by stating the reason in the accompanying email or in an attached document. If you have a lot of reviewers and a lot of comments, you can draft a document on “Co-author suggestions I did not take.” You can organize this document by the co-author. Describe their comment and the reason you did not make the suggested change. This allows the co-author to jump immediately to your response to their critique and so efficiently decide whether more conversation would be fruitful.

1.2.7 Summary of the Think-Before-You-Write Process

A first-authored scientific publication develops your scientific reasoning, bolsters your credentials as a scientist, shares your organization’s work, and contributes to global scientific knowledge.

Following this six-step “think-before-you-write” approach helps all authors work efficiently to generate high-quality manuscripts. Spending initial time developing and collecting feedback from a framing document and a high-level outline saves countless hours in the long run. Responding to the “most common errors” identified by reviewers quickly improves the quality of the drafts. Sharing the draft versions of your paper with co-authors on a timely basis ensures you make steady progress toward publication.

1.3 The Writing and Publishing Process

1.3.1 Converting Preliminary Work into a Manuscript

Oftentimes, authors have presented the core findings of their planned manuscript in another format perhaps as a verbal or poster presentation, as a report for a funding agency or government authority, or as a thesis for an academic degree. These efforts can be quite helpful in developing a manuscript. They often advance analysis and framing and provide a forum for the author to collect feedback on their work. With all the effort to develop a report or thesis, it may seem that just a few hours work will be required to reformat the work into a manuscript. However, more commonly, even with this preliminary work, developing a manuscript is a substantial task.

1.3 The Writing and Publishing Process 13

A thesis or a report has a different audience than a journal article. This different audience calls for a somewhat different focus, a different level of detail and meticulous attention to previously published work and careful scientific reasoning. A funder is likely to be primarily interested in how the study addressed the project objectives. A thesis may require a particular format and attention to specific issues depending upon the department or institution issuing a degree. By contrast, a scientific manuscript should be framed around the novel information that you are presenting to the international scientific community and how this new knowledge connects with prior ideas and findings previously published in the scientific literature.