مقدمه

برخی.دارندلمیعمقاالتنوشتنبهزیادیتمایلوهستندواقفنویسیمقالهمزایایبهتکمیلیتحصیالتدانشجویانازبسیاریاین.دارنداراختیدرارائهبرایمطلوبینتایجوهادادهورسانیدهانجامبهنیزراوسیعیمطالعاتوتحقیقاتدانشجویاناینازشایستهآنچنانکهراخودارزشمنداطالعاتتوانندنمیونداشتهراکافینفسبهاعتمادمقالهنوشتندرآنهاکهاستحالیدر

زمانودهکرزیادیتالشمناسبهایدادهآوردندستبهبرایدانشجویانازبسیاریهمچنین.بیاورنددرتحریررشتهبهاستالهمقکاربردیتحقیقروشازروشندیدیابتدادرتوانندنمیکهآنجاازاما؛نمایندمیآزمایشیامطالعهصرفرازیادیبادنشمواجهمحضبهحقیقتدر.شودمینتیجهبیعملدرهادادهارائهبرایآنهاتالشهایبیشترمتأسفانهباشند،داشته

ضعیفایپایهبایاوبازماندهتالشوتحقیقادامهازپژوهشگراناکثرآنها،باآشناییعدموپژوهشحوزهدرمختلفسدهایبه.ستاآنانجامدرویجدیتمیزانوتحقیقاتیکارانجامبهدانشجوعالقهدهندهنشانعلمیمقاالت.رسانندمیانجامبهراآن

ویژهبهحصیلیتباالترمقاطعدرپذیرشاخذبرایبیشتریشانسدارند،علمیمقاالتکهدانشجویانیکهاستشدهثابتتجربهدلیلهمینبه.داردنیزخارجیمعتبردانشگاههایازپذیرشاخذدرچندانیدوتأثیرامراینالبتهوداشتهدکتریمقطعدر

مقاالت.شودمیتوصیهمواکداتکمیلیتحصیالتدانشجویانبههموکارشناسیدانشجویانبههمعلمیمقالهچاپونوشتنویستندنیکسانژورنالهاوکنفرانسهاتماماعتبار،نظراز.شوندمیچاپژورنالهادریاوارایهکنفرانسهادرمعموالاًعلمیازخارجیدانشگاههادرتحصیلادامهبرایوقتیکهباشیدداشتهتوجه.استمتفاوتشودمیچاپآنهادرکهمقاالتیکیفیتارهایمعیمهمترینازیکیاست،شدهچاپآندرشمامقاالتکهکنفرانسییامجلهوشمامقاالتتعداد،کنیدمیاقدامکشور

.رددگمیمنتشرمقاالتدرآنهاازکوچکیبخشتنهااما،شودمیانجامفراوانیتحقیقاتامروزه.بودخواهدشماارزشیابیبهیاونیازهاجزءآنیادگیریکهروستایناز.استعلمیمقالهساختاریتدویندرمحققمهارتعدمآن،دالیلازیکی

.آیدمیحساببهآموزشیالزاماتجزءدیگرعبارت

1

*Overview of a paper

2

*Writing an article is a cyclic process!

gap

answer

3

What we might talk about• Why publish?

• What do editors want?

• The basics of writing a paper

• The rudiments of style

• Peer-review processes

• Authorship/contributorship

• Conflict of interest

• Redundant publication

• Good practice in publishing

4

Why publish?• Because you have something important to say

• To promote thought or debate

• To allow examination of your work

• Money

• Career advancement

• To entertain/divert/amuse

• To educate

• To inform other of your findings

• To change practice (habits)

• To award a grant or scholarship

• To promote your academic degree

• Personal satisfaction (pure pleasure)

• To establish a reputation and build a career (promotion)

• To build knowledge (save the world)

• Fame and the love of …

• Advance knowledge in your research field with evidence

• Explain your ideas and make them accessible to others

• Yours?

5

Why to Write a Scientific Paper

• Two key components in a research paper:

• An explicit claim on your contribution on a research problem (gap)

• Evidence to support your claim (answer)

• Your contribution can possibly be a refutation of a hypothesis on the

research problem

• It is NOT enough to design another technique or system without

convincing evaluation.

6

What do editors want?

• Excitement/“wow”

• Importance

• Relevance to the audience (In journalism, readers take precedence over authors.)

• True

• Clearly written

• Innovation

• Simplicity, Can it be clearer, shorter?

• Contribution

• Originality, What’s new?

• Content, Is there enough?

7

Questions reviewers ask

Does the paper fit the standards and scope of the journal it is being considered for?

Is the research question clear? Was the approach appropriate?

Is the study design, methods, and analysis appropriate to the question being studied?

Is the study innovative or original? Does it add to existing knowledge and/or develop novel concepts?

Are the methods described clearly enough for other researchers to replicate?

Does the paper advance previous work or does it introduce a new concept?

Does the paper have hardware: has a chip/device/machine been fabricated and tested?

8

Questions reviewers ask (contd.)

Are the methods of statistical analysis and level of significance appropriate?

Could presentation of the results be improved and do they answer the question?

If humans, human tissues, or animals are involved, was ethics approval gained and

was the study ethical?

Are the conclusions appropriate?

Does the topic of the paper fit into the scope of the Journal?

In which subcommittee does the paper fit?

Have parts of the paper been published before?

9

*Research process

• Do some research.

• Write it up (prepare a report).

• Send it to a journal (submission).

• Editor rejects the paper ... accepts or invites a revision.

• You revise and resubmit (possibly several times).

• Paper is accepted.

• Paper is published.

10

1. Before you begin, ask yourself

• What do I have to say? Originality or filling the gap

• Is it worth saying? Importance

• What is the right format for the message?

• What is the audience for the message? Scholars or the public

• Where should I publish the message? Journal

• How can I best use literature and the web? Literature

• What results do I want to communicate? Contribution

• How does my work improve on previously published work?

• Who are the key players in this area? Scholars

• What are the latest references? The newest publications and research

11

• Should I publish alone or with others?

• Should I publish with my supervisors or advisors?

• Why may my paper be rejected?

• How do I react/respond to rejection?

• Who is likely to review my paper?

• Do I have any influence in selecting the reviewers of my paper?

• What if I disagree with the reviewers’ comments?

• Should I submit to more than one journal at a time?

• Should I reference my own work?

• Should I reference the work of the editorial board?

12

Publishing checklist

2. The importance of structure

Structure is (almost) everything.Beginning, middle, end

Tell people what you are going to say, say it, tell them what you’ve said.

What, Why, When, How, Where, and Who?

Make sure that readers know where they are, where they are going, and why.

Genre

13

*3. Possible structures (cont.)

• title, byline and institutional affiliation, abstract, key words, introduction, literature review, methods, results, (and) discussion, (and) conclusion, references

• significance of the study, implications, limitations, suggestions for further research, appendices, footnotes, endnotes, acknowledgments, the model/theory, hypothesis development (if appropriate), data description, biodata

• Research questions, research hypothesis: Need or curiosity?

14

4. IMRaD

• Introduction -- Why did I do it? Logic

• Methods -- What did I do? Actions

• Results -- What did I find? Achievements

• Discussion -- What might it mean? Comparison and contrast

What is our overall finding? What are the strengths and weaknesses ofthe study in relation to/compared to other studies? Why might we havegot different results? What might the study mean, particularly forclinicians, experts, or policy makers? What questions remainunanswered?

15

5. IMRaD (Introduction)

• Why did we start? Logic

• What has gone before? A systematic review (LR)

• Why was this study needed? Filling the gap or statement of the problem

• Be sure that readers understand the importance of the study, but don’t overdo it. Significance of the study

• Don’t try to show readers that you have read everything.

• Short, short, short

16

What to Claim for a Scientific Paper

• Your technique solves a problem for the first time.

• Your technique performs better, in one or more of the following dimensions, than its rivals:• Behavior: X has a higher success rate than Y or produces better quality outputs,

(e.g., shorter, easier to understand, more similar to human outputs, etc.)

• Coverage: X is applicable to a wider range of examples than Y.

• Efficiency: X is faster or uses less space than Y.

• Usability: Users find X easier to use than its rivals.

• You should avoid claiming too many dimensions, but one or two with in-depth evidence.

17

5. IMRaD (Methods)

• Like a recipe; process writing

• For informed readers, this is the most important section; replicability

• Describe how subjects (participants) were selected and excluded; sampling procedures

• Don’t describe standard methods in detail - use references, appendix

• Statistics; number of participants, instruments, …

• Ethical issues; informed consent, anonymity, voluntarily participation, …

• Remember that you can put more detailed methods on the web or as an appendix (e.g., questionnaires, treatment material, etc.)

18

5. IMRaD (Results)

• Stick to what is relevant.

• Be sure to include basic descriptive data.

• The text should tell the story.

• The tables give the evidence.

• The figures illustrate the highlights.

• Don’t include just percentages or p-values.

• Include confidence intervals.

• Think about absolute risk number needed to treat, etc.

• Avoid beginning to discuss the implications or strengths and weaknesses of your study.

19

5. IMRaD (Discussion)

• Statement of principal findings

• Strengths and weaknesses of the study

• Strengths and weaknesses in relation to other studies, discussing particularly any differences in results

• Meaning of the study: possible mechanisms and implications for clinicians or policymakers, etc.

• Unanswered questions and future research

20

6. Topping and tailing

• Title: Include design; Don’t try to be clever

• Authorship: by-line and institutional affiliation

• Abstract: Must be structured; include some numbers, not all, follow a kind a genre

• References: Keep to the essentials

• Covering letter: Something very crisp

• Acknowledgements, competing interests

21

*The rudiments of style

• Short words

• Short sentences

• Short paragraphs, even in length

• No jargon

• No abbreviations

• Either American or British (keep consistency)

• Prefer nouns and verbs to adjectives and adverbs

• Cut all clichés

22

The rudiments of style (cont.)• Don’t be too chatty.

• Don’t be pleased with yourself.

• Avoid figures of speech and idioms.

• Prefer passive to active voice.

• Prefer the concrete to the abstract.

• Avoid the not unblack cat crossed the not unwide road.

• Don’t hector.

• Be careful with slangs.

• Add a dash of color, just a dash.

23

Peer-review processes

• As many processes as journals or grant-giving bodies

• No operational definition--usually implies “external review”

• Benefits come from improving what is published rather than

sorting the wheat from the chaff.

24

Problems with peer-review• Ineffective

• Slow

• Expensive

• Biased

• Easily abused

• Unable to detect fraud

“Stand at the top of the stairs with a pile of papers and throw them down the stairs. Those that reach the bottom are published.”

“Sort the papers into two piles: those to be published and those to be rejected. Then swap them over.”

25

Overview of peer-review process

Paper submitted

Initial decision by editor

Confirmation of receipt

Rejection Decide to review

Assign reviewers

Reviewers accept invite

Reviews completed

RejectAccept

Notification to author

Revise

Paper sent to publisher

AcceptRevise

Revision received

Revision checked

26

*After submission• Most journal editors will make an initial decision on a paper (to review or

reject).

• Most editors appoint two referees or even more.

• Refereeing speed varies tremendously between journals.

• Authors should receive a decision of “accept”, “accept with revision (minor or major)”, or “reject”.

• If a paper is rejected, most editors will write to you explaining their reason for such a decision.

• After rejection, authors have the option of submitting the paper to another journal - editor’s suggestions should be addressed.

27

*Last clue

The most common vocabulary items in every section of an article

28