How to Write a Scientific Paper - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 11
About This Presentation
Title:

How to Write a Scientific Paper

Description:

How to Write a Scientific Paper. Ed Bullmore. You should already have started to write your first/next paper, whether you know ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:850
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 12
Provided by: edb81
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: How to Write a Scientific Paper


1
How to Write a Scientific Paper
  • Ed Bullmore

2
You should already have started to write your
first/next paper, whether you know it or not!
  • Ethics committee applications, job applications,
    grant applications, protocol presentations etc
    allow you to rehearse in writing
  • context, background, literature review
  • emergent hypotheses
  • a sense of motivation for the study
  • major study design elements

3
Introduction (1) Context, background,
literature review
  • Make a short, simple opening statement of the
    context in a few, accessible sentences - avoiding
    over-ambitious vagueness or immediately
    impenetrable jargon
  • Hitherto, the nature of consciousness has proved
    elusive.
  • AR models of residual autocorrelation will fail
    for 1/f noise
  • Background, literature review
  • remember this is not a review - so be selective,
    play favourites
  • remember your paper will be peer-reviewed, by
    prior autors in the field, so dont be too
    selective...
  • acknowledge history!

4
Introduction (2)
  • Hypotheses
  • inevitable, refutable, empirically specific,
    statistically testable
  • written down a priori
  • Motivation
  • why should you bother writing this paper and why
    should I bother reading it?

5
MethodsMajor study design elements
  • Sample
  • size, with respect to power
  • composition, with respect to population and
    stratification
  • Measurements
  • observational
  • experimental
  • Statistical models and testing
  • factorial structure
  • test statistics or outcome measures
  • distributions including priors
  • hypothesis testing, type 1 and type 2 error
    control

6
Results
  • Use figures and tables with self-contained
    legends to convey your most important results at
    a glance
  • Let your readers see as much as possible of the
    data for themselves, without losing narrative
    coherence
  • use descriptive statistics/graphics as well as
    hypothesis tests
  • oragnise presentation so that logically or
    substantively related results are juxtaposed

7
Discussion
  • It is OK to use a less constrained, more
    conversational style
  • Start positive, headlining key results in context
  • return to hypotheses
  • be thoughtful about any differences between your
    work and the existing literature
  • Do not simply rehearse results
  • interpretation, synthesis, predictive speculation
  • avoid blob-by-blob decompositions of complex
    function in fMRI papers
  • pay attention to unexpected/discrepant results
  • Explicitly consider the limitations of your work

8
Title, authors, abstractThe really important
stuff
9
Title, authors, abstractthe really important
stuff
  • The title is the only part of your paper most
    people will read - make it clear, self-contained,
    descriptive
  • The abstract is vitally important - without doubt
    the most important 200 words in the paper
  • tailor it to target journal
  • report results
  • use key words for literature searching
  • Authors - first, second, last and corresponding
  • seek guidance from your supervisor

10
How to publish a scientific paper (1)
  • Think about target journals early on
  • high impact equals tight word count
  • impact is not always a six letter word
  • if you aim low you cant subsequently move up the
    food chain
  • if you aim high you may have to allow for
    turnaround time (rejection) or second album
    syndrome (success)
  • Obey instructions to authors
  • use a bibliography manager
  • acknowledge grant support, conflict of interest

11
How to publish a scientific paper (2)
  • Dealing with reviews
  • anticipate revision it is almost inevitable and
    generally beneficial
  • organise the final version of the paper and all
    ancillary data carefully before submission
  • try not to take criticism personallyor as a
    reflection of incompetence on the part of
    reviewers
  • their failure to understand is your lack of
    clarity
  • be respectful, exact and direct in responding to
    the editor
  • if the reviews are too negative to justify
    acceptance, incorporate any helpful comments and
    resubmit
  • whatever you do - do it sooner rather than later!
  • Dealing with proofs
  • Dealing with fame!
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com