original article in research paper

• SpringerLink shop

Types of journal articles

It is helpful to familiarise yourself with the different types of articles published by journals. Although it may appear there are a large number of types of articles published due to the wide variety of names they are published under, most articles published are one of the following types; Original Research, Review Articles, Short reports or Letters, Case Studies, Methodologies.

Original Research:

This is the most common type of journal manuscript used to publish full reports of data from research. It may be called an  Original Article, Research Article, Research, or just  Article, depending on the journal. The Original Research format is suitable for many different fields and different types of studies. It includes full Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion sections.

Short reports or Letters:

These papers communicate brief reports of data from original research that editors believe will be interesting to many researchers, and that will likely stimulate further research in the field. As they are relatively short the format is useful for scientists with results that are time sensitive (for example, those in highly competitive or quickly-changing disciplines). This format often has strict length limits, so some experimental details may not be published until the authors write a full Original Research manuscript. These papers are also sometimes called Brief communications .

Review Articles:

Review Articles provide a comprehensive summary of research on a certain topic, and a perspective on the state of the field and where it is heading. They are often written by leaders in a particular discipline after invitation from the editors of a journal. Reviews are often widely read (for example, by researchers looking for a full introduction to a field) and highly cited. Reviews commonly cite approximately 100 primary research articles.

TIP: If you would like to write a Review but have not been invited by a journal, be sure to check the journal website as some journals to not consider unsolicited Reviews. If the website does not mention whether Reviews are commissioned it is wise to send a pre-submission enquiry letter to the journal editor to propose your Review manuscript before you spend time writing it.  

Case Studies:

These articles report specific instances of interesting phenomena. A goal of Case Studies is to make other researchers aware of the possibility that a specific phenomenon might occur. This type of study is often used in medicine to report the occurrence of previously unknown or emerging pathologies.

Methodologies or Methods

These articles present a new experimental method, test or procedure. The method described may either be completely new, or may offer a better version of an existing method. The article should describe a demonstrable advance on what is currently available.

Back │ Next

• Main Library
• Digital Fabrication Lab
• Data Visualization Lab
• Business Learning Center
• Klai Juba Wald Architectural Studies Library
• NDSU Nursing at Sanford Health Library
• Research Assistance
• Special Collections
• Digital Collections
• Collection Development Policy
• Course Reserves
• Request Library Instruction
• Main Library Services
• Alumni & Community
• Academic Support Services in the Library
• Libraries Resources for Employees
• Book Equipment or Study Rooms
• Librarians by Academic Subject
• Germans from Russia Heritage Collection
• NDSU Archives
• Mission, Vision, and Strategic Plan 2022-2024
• Staff Directory
• Floor Plans
• The Libraries Magazine
• Accommodations for People with Disabilities
• Annual Report
• Donate to the Libraries
• Equity, Diversity and Inclusion
• Faculty Senate Library Committee
• Undergraduate Research Award

What is an original research article?

An original research article is a report of research activity that is written by the researchers who conducted the research or experiment. Original research articles may also be referred to as: “primary research articles” or “primary scientific literature.” In science courses, instructors may also refer to these as “peer-reviewed articles” or “refereed articles.”

Original research articles in the sciences have a specific purpose, follow a scientific article format, are peer reviewed, and published in academic journals.

Identifying Original Research: What to Look For

An "original research article" is an article that is reporting original research about new data or theories that have not been previously published. That might be the results of new experiments, or newly derived models or simulations. The article will include a detailed description of the methods used to produce them, so that other researchers can verify them. This description is often found in a section called "methods" or "materials and methods" or similar. Similarly, the results will generally be described in great detail, often in a section called "results."

Since the original research article is reporting the results of new research, the authors should be the scientists who conducted that research. They will have expertise in the field, and will usually be employed by a university or research lab.

In comparison, a newspaper or magazine article (such as in  The New York Times  or  National Geographic ) will usually be written by a journalist reporting on the actions of someone else.

An original research article will be written by and for scientists who study related topics. As such, the article should use precise, technical language to ensure that other researchers have an exact understanding of what was done, how to do it, and why it matters. There will be plentiful citations to previous work, helping place the research article in a broader context. The article will be published in an academic journal, follow a scientific format, and undergo peer-review.

Original research articles in the sciences follow the scientific format. ( This tutorial from North Carolina State University illustrates some of the key features of this format.)

Look for signs of this format in the subject headings or subsections of the article. You should see the following:

Scientific research that is published in academic journals undergoes a process called "peer review."

The peer review process goes like this:

• A researcher writes a paper and sends it in to an academic journal, where it is read by an editor
• The editor then sends the article to other scientists who study similar topics, who can best evaluate the article
• The scientists/reviewers examine the article's research methodology, reasoning, originality, and sginificance
• The scientists/reviewers then make suggestions and comments to impove the paper
• The original author is then given these suggestions and comments, and makes changes as needed
• This process repeats until everyone is satisfied and the article can be published within the academic journal

For more details about this process see the Peer Reviewed Publications guide.

This journal article  is an example. It was published in the journal  Royal Society Open Science  in 2015. Clicking on the button that says "Review History" will show the comments by the editors, reviewers and the author as it went through the peer review process. The "About Us" menu provides details about this journal; "About the journal" under that tab includes the statement that the journal is peer reviewed.

Review articles

There are a variety of article types published in academic, peer-reviewed journals, but the two most common are original research articles and review articles . They can look very similar, but have different purposes and structures.

Like original research articles, review articles are aimed at scientists and undergo peer-review. Review articles often even have “abstract,” “introduction,” and “reference” sections. However, they will not (generally) have a “methods” or “results” section because they are not reporting new data or theories. Instead, they review the current state of knowledge on a topic.

Press releases, newspaper or magazine articles

These won't be in a formal scientific format or be peer reviewed. The author will usually be a journalist, and the audience will be the general public. Since most readers are not interested in the precise details of the research, the language will usually be nontechnical and broad. Citations will be rare or nonexistent.

Tips for Finding Original research Articles

Search for articles in one of the library databases recommend for your subject area . If you are using Google, try searching in Google Scholar instead and you will get results that are more likely to be original research articles than what will come up in a regular Google search!

For tips on using library databases to find articles, see our Library DIY guides .

Tips for Finding the Source of a News Report about Science

If you've seen or heard a report about a new scientific finding or claim, these tips can help you find the original source:

• Often, the report will mention where the original research was published; look for sentences like "In an article published yesterday in the journal  Nature ..." You can use this to find the issue of the journal where the research was published, and look at the table of contents to find the original article.
• The report will often name the researchers involved. You can search relevant databases for their name and the topic of the report to find the original research that way.
• Sometimes you may have to go through multiple articles to find the original source. For example, a video or blog post may be based on a newspaper article, which in turn is reporting on a scientific discovery published in another journal; be sure to find the original research article.
• Don't be afraid to ask a librarian for help!

Search The Site

Find Your Librarian  

Phone:  Circulation:  (701) 231-8888 Reference:  (701) 231-8888 Administration:  (701) 231-8753

Email:  Administration InterLibrary Loan (ILL)

• Online Services
• Phone/Email Directory
• Registration And Records
• Government Information
• Library DIY
• Subject and Course Guides
• Special Topics
• Collection Highlights
• Digital Horizons
• NDSU Repository (IR)
• Libraries Hours
• News & Events

• Enroll & Pay
• Prospective Students
• Current Students
• Degree Programs

Original Research

An original research paper should present a unique argument of your own. In other words, the claim of the paper should be debatable and should be your (the researcher’s) own original idea. Typically an original research paper builds on the existing research on a topic, addresses a specific question, presents the findings according to a standard structure (described below), and suggests questions for further research and investigation. Though writers in any discipline may conduct original research, scientists and social scientists in particular are interested in controlled investigation and inquiry. Their research often consists of direct and indirect observation in the laboratory or in the field. Many scientists write papers to investigate a hypothesis (a statement to be tested).

Although the precise order of research elements may vary somewhat according to the specific task, most include the following elements:

• Table of contents
• List of illustrations
• Body of the report
• References cited

Check your assignment for guidance on which formatting style is required. The Complete Discipline Listing Guide (Purdue OWL)  provides information on the most common style guide for each discipline, but be sure to check with your instructor.

The title of your work is important. It draws the reader to your text. A common practice for titles is to use a two-phrase title where the first phrase is a broad reference to the topic to catch the reader’s attention. This phrase is followed by a more direct and specific explanation of your project. For example:

“Lions, Tigers, and Bears, Oh My!: The Effects of Large Predators on Livestock Yields.”

The first phrase draws the reader in – it is creative and interesting. The second part of the title tells the reader the specific focus of the research.

In addition, data base retrieval systems often work with  keywords  extracted from the title or from a list the author supplies. When possible, incorporate them into the title. Select these words with consideration of how prospective readers might attempt to access your document. For more information on creating keywords, refer to this  Springer research publication guide.

See the KU Writing Center Writing Guide on Abstracts for detailed information about creating an abstract.

Table of Contents

The table of contents provides the reader with the outline and location of specific aspects of your document. Listings in the table of contents typically match the headings in the paper. Normally, authors number any pages before the table of contents as well as the lists of illustrations/tables/figures using lower-case roman numerals. As such, the table of contents will use lower-case roman numbers to identify the elements of the paper prior to the body of the report, appendix, and reference page. Additionally, because authors will normally use Arabic numerals (e.g., 1, 2, 3) to number the pages of the body of the research paper (starting with the introduction), the table of contents will use Arabic numerals to identify the main sections of the body of the paper (the introduction, literature review, methods, results, discussion, conclusion, references, and appendices).

Here is an example of a table of contents:

ABSTRACT..................................................iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS...............................iv

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS...........................v

LIST OF TABLES.........................................vii

INTRODUCTION..........................................1

LITERATURE REVIEW.................................6

METHODS....................................................9

RESULTS....................................................10

DISCUSSION..............................................16

CONCLUSION............................................18

REFERENCES............................................20

APPENDIX................................................. 23

More information on creating a table of contents can be found in the Table of Contents Guide (SHSU)  from the Newton Gresham Library at Sam Houston State University.

List of Illustrations

Authors typically include a list of the illustrations in the paper with longer documents. List the number (e.g., Illustration 4), title, and page number of each illustration under headings such as "List of Illustrations" or "List of Tables.”

Body of the Report

The tone of a report based on original research will be objective and formal, and the writing should be concise and direct. The structure will likely consist of these standard sections:  introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion . Typically, authors identify these sections with headings and may use subheadings to identify specific themes within these sections (such as themes within the literature under the literature review section).

Introduction

Given what the field says about this topic, here is my contribution to this line of inquiry.

The introduction often consists of the rational for the project. What is the phenomenon or event that inspired you to write about this topic? What is the relevance of the topic and why is it important to study it now? Your introduction should also give some general background on the topic – but this should not be a literature review. This is the place to give your readers and necessary background information on the history, current circumstances, or other qualities of your topic generally. In other words, what information will a layperson need to know in order to get a decent understanding of the purpose and results of your paper? Finally, offer a “road map” to your reader where you explain the general order of the remainder of your paper. In the road map, do not just list the sections of the paper that will follow. You should refer to the main points of each section, including the main arguments in the literature review, a few details about your methods, several main points from your results/analysis, the most important takeaways from your discussion section, and the most significant conclusion or topic for further research.   

Literature Review

This is what other researchers have published about this topic.

In the literature review, you will define and clarify the state of the topic by citing key literature that has laid the groundwork for this investigation. This review of the literature will identify relations, contradictions, gaps, and inconsistencies between previous investigations and this one, and suggest the next step in the investigation chain, which will be your hypothesis. You should write the literature review in the  present tense  because it is ongoing information.

Methods (Procedures)

This is how I collected and analyzed the information.

This section recounts the procedures of the study. You will write this in  past tense  because you have already completed the study. It must include what is necessary to replicate and validate the hypothesis. What details must the reader know in order to replicate this study? What were your purposes in this study? The challenge in this section is to understand the possible readers well enough to include what is necessary without going into detail on “common-knowledge” procedures. Be sure that you are specific enough about your research procedure that someone in your field could easily replicate your study. Finally, make sure not to report any findings in this section.

This is what I found out from my research.

This section reports the findings from your research. Because this section is about research that is completed, you should write it primarily in the  past tense . The form and level of detail of the results depends on the hypothesis and goals of this report, and the needs of your audience. Authors of research papers often use visuals in the results section, but the visuals should enhance, rather than serve as a substitute, for the narrative of your results. Develop a narrative based on the thesis of the paper and the themes in your results and use visuals to communicate key findings that address your hypothesis or help to answer your research question. Include any unusual findings that will clarify the data. It is a good idea to use subheadings to group the results section into themes to help the reader understand the main points or findings of the research. 

This is what the findings mean in this situation and in terms of the literature more broadly.

This section is your opportunity to explain the importance and implications of your research. What is the significance of this research in terms of the hypothesis? In terms of other studies? What are possible implications for any academic theories you utilized in the study? Are there any policy implications or suggestions that result from the study? Incorporate key studies introduced in the review of literature into your discussion along with your own data from the results section. The discussion section should put your research in conversation with previous research – now you are showing directly how your data complements or contradicts other researchers’ data and what the wider implications of your findings are for academia and society in general. What questions for future research do these findings suggest? Because it is ongoing information, you should write the discussion in the  present tense . Sometimes the results and discussion are combined; if so, be certain to give fair weight to both.

These are the key findings gained from this research.

Summarize the key findings of your research effort in this brief final section. This section should not introduce new information. You can also address any limitations from your research design and suggest further areas of research or possible projects you would complete with a new and improved research design.

References/Works Cited

See KU Writing Center  writing guides  to learn more about different citation styles like APA, MLA, and Chicago.  Make an appointment  at the KU Writing Center for more help. Be sure to format the paper and references based on the citation style that your professor requires or based on the requirements of the academic journal or conference where you hope to submit the paper.

The appendix includes attachments that are pertinent to the main document but are too detailed to be included in the main text. These materials should be titled and labeled (for example Appendix A: Questionnaire). You should refer to the appendix in the text with in-text references so the reader understands additional useful information is available elsewhere in the document. Examples of documents to include in the appendix include regression tables, tables of text analysis data, and interview questions.

Updated June 2022  

How to write an original article

Affiliations.

• 1 Servicio de Urología, Fundació Puigvert, Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, España. Electronic address: [email protected].
• 2 Servicio de Urología, Fundació Puigvert, Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, España.
• PMID: 29779648
• DOI: 10.1016/j.acuro.2018.02.011

Context: A correctly drafted original article gives information on what was done, why it was done, how it was done, the result of what was done, and the significance of what was done. Many articles fail to report their results effectively.

Objective: To describe the characteristics of an original article and to give practical recommendations to prevent the most common errors in our environment.

Evidence acquisition: We performed a systematic search of the terms "how to write a scientific article", "structure of the original article" and "publishing an article" in the databases PubMed and SCOPUS. We analysed the structure of an original article and the characteristics of its parts and prepared advice on the publication of an article.

Evidence synthesis: The journal's guidelines for authors should be read. It is usual for the original article to follow the IMRAD structure: Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion. The introduction states briefly why the study was performed. The methods' section should give a detailed explanation of how the study was performed. The results should be clearly presented, with the help of tables, without repeating information. The discussion explains the relevance of the results and contrasts them with those of other authors. Any limitations and a conclusion supported by the results must be included.

Conclusions: Writing an original article correctly requires practice and it must be supported by a good research work in order to be published.

Keywords: Escribir un artículo; Estructura del artículo original; Publicar un artículo; Publishing an article; Structure of the original article; Writing an article.

Copyright © 2018 AEU. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.

Publication types

• Guidelines as Topic
• Publishing / standards*
• Writing / standards*

Scientific Manuscript Writing: Original Research, Case Reports, Review Articles

• First Online: 02 March 2024

Cite this chapter

• Kimberly M. Rathbun 5  

15 Accesses

Manuscripts are used to communicate the findings of your work with other researchers. Writing your first manuscript can be a challenge. Journals provide guidelines to authors which should be followed closely. The three major types of articles (original research, case reports, and review articles) all generally follow the IMRAD format with slight variations in content. With planning and thought, manuscript writing does not have to be a daunting task.

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

Access this chapter

• 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

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Suggested Readings

Alsaywid BS, Abdulhaq NM. Guideline on writing a case report. Urol Ann. 2019;11(2):126–31.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Cohen H. How to write a patient case report. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2006;63(19):1888–92.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Cooper ID. How to write an original research paper (and get it published). J Med Lib Assoc. 2015;103:67–8.

Article   Google Scholar  

Gemayel R. How to write a scientific paper. FEBS J. 2016;283(21):3882–5.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Gülpınar Ö, Güçlü AG. How to write a review article? Turk J Urol. 2013;39(Suppl 1):44–8.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Huth EJ. Structured abstracts for papers reporting clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 1987;106:626–7.

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. http://www.ICMJE.org . Accessed 23 Aug 2022.

Liumbruno GM, Velati C, Pasqualetti P, Franchini M. How to write a scientific manuscript for publication. Blood Transfus. 2013;11:217–26.

McCarthy LH, Reilly KE. How to write a case report. Fam Med. 2000;32(3):190–5.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, McGuinness LA, Stewart LA, Thomas J, Tricco AC, Welch VA, Whiting P, McKenzie JE. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n160.

The Biosemantics Group. Journal/author name estimator. https://jane.biosemantics.org/ . Accessed 24 Aug 2022.

Weinstein R. How to write a manuscript for peer review. J Clin Apher. 2020;35(4):358–66.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Emergency Medicine, AU/UGA Medical Partnership, Athens, GA, USA

Kimberly M. Rathbun

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kimberly M. Rathbun .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Emergency Medicine, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA, USA

Robert P. Olympia

Elizabeth Barrall Werley

Jeffrey S. Lubin

MD Anderson Cancer Center at Cooper, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, NJ, USA

Kahyun Yoon-Flannery

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Rathbun, K.M. (2023). Scientific Manuscript Writing: Original Research, Case Reports, Review Articles. In: Olympia, R.P., Werley, E.B., Lubin, J.S., Yoon-Flannery, K. (eds) An Emergency Physician’s Path. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47873-4_80

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47873-4_80

Published : 02 March 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-47872-7

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-47873-4

eBook Packages : Medicine Medicine (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

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
• PMC10306213

Content and form of original research articles in general major medical journals

Nicole heßler.

1 Institut für Medizinische Biometrie und Statistik (IMBS), Universität zu Lübeck, Universitätsklinikum-Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany

Andreas Ziegler

2 Cardio-CARE, Medizincampus Davos, Davos, Switzerland

3 School of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science, University of KwaZulu Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa

4 Department of Cardiology, University Heart and Vascular Center Hamburg, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

5 Centre for Population Health Innovation (POINT), University Heart and Vascular Center Hamburg, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

6 Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics, Lausanne, Switzerland

Associated Data

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

The title of an article is the main entrance for reading the full article. The aim of our work therefore is to examine differences of title content and form between original research articles and its changes over time. Using PubMed we examined title properties of 500 randomly chosen original research articles published in the general major medical journals BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, NEJM and PLOS Medicine between 2011 and 2020. Articles were manually evaluated with two independent raters. To analyze differences between journals and changes over time, we performed random effect meta-analyses and logistic regression models. Mentioning of results, providing any quantitative or semi-quantitative information, using a declarative title, a dash or a question mark were rarely used in the title in all considered journals. The use of a subtitle, methods-related items, such as mentioning of methods, clinical context or treatment increased over time (all p < 0.05), while the use of phrasal tiles decreased over time (p = 0.044). Not a single NEJM title contained a study name, while the Lancet had the highest usage of it (45%). The use of study names increased over time (per year odds ratio: 1.13 (95% CI: [1.03‒1.24]), p = 0.008). Investigating title content and form was time-consuming because some criteria could only be adequately evaluated by hand. Title content changed over time and differed substantially between the five major medical journals. Authors are advised to carefully study titles of journal articles in their target journal prior to manuscript submission.

Introduction

Researchers have the duty to make the results of their research on human subjects publicly available according to the declaration of Helsinki [ 1 ], and many recommendations for the reporting of studies have been developed. An overview on these reporting guidelines is provided by the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) network, which aims to tackle the problems of poor reporting [ 2 ]. One consequence of systematic reporting is that many scientific articles are organized in the same way [ 3 , 4 ], and they generally follow the IMRAD structure, which stands for Introduction, Methods, Results, And Discussion. The IMRAD structure is also standard for the writing of abstracts. It is therefore of interest to researchers how they can individualize their reports to increase the citation counts, which is one important measure for career advancement [ 5 ].

Approximately 30 factors affecting citation frequency have already been identified [ 6 – 9 ]. While journal- and author related factors are generally not modifiable, some article-specific factors are subject to active modification by the authors. Especially the title has been proposed as a modifiable component of a research article [ 9 – 11 ]. Researchers should use titles that accurately reflect the content of their work and allow others easily to find and re-use their research [ 12 ]. Most research has focused on the form of article titles because these analyses could be performed automatically and are not very time-consuming [ 9 , 13 , 14 ].

While the article content has been studied well both in features, such as tense, voice and personal pronouns, and in the IMRAD sections between different research disciplines, title content has received less attention, and the main focus was title length [ 15 , 16 ]. One reason could be the lack of automated internet searches until approximately 25 years ago. For example, PubMed was first released in 1996, Web of Science is online since 1997 and Google Scholar started not earlier than in 2004. With the advent of automated internet-based searches the importance of the title has changed, and it is now the “billboard” of a research article [ 17 ]. Another reason could be that these evaluations have to be made manually, and they are thus time-consuming [ 18 ]. An additional time-consuming factor could be that guidelines such as the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) statement [ 19 ] strongly recommend that at least two observers should do an independent evaluation where applicable.

Most articles investigating the form of the title compared whether the title was a full sentence [ 20 ], descriptive, indicative, or a question [ 18 , 21 ], or whether the title included non-alphanumeric characters, such as a colon or dash [ 22 ]. Very few publications looked at other title components of a research article. Specifically, Kerans, Marshall [ 23 ] compared the frequency of Methods mentioning or Results mentioning for the general major medical journals, specifically the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), the BMJ, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), and the Lancet by analyzing the first approximately 60 articles published either in 2015 or 2017 in each of the journals. Both articles investigated only a few months from a single publication year per journal. The development of title content over time was thus not considered.

The aim of our work therefore was to examine properties of title content for original research articles published in one of the five major clinical journals (BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, NEJM, and PLOS Medicine (PLOS)) over the 10-year period from 2011 until 2020. Specifically, we aimed at identifying differences between the five journals and changes over time regarding title content and title form. We also compared our findings to those of Kerans et al. [ 15 , 23 ].

Materials and methods

Search in medline and web of science.

The search strategy has been described in detail elsewhere [ 9 ]. In brief, we first extracted all original research articles finally published between 2011 and 2020 in the five major clinical journals BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, NEJM, and PLOS. The restriction to the publication year 2011 allows for proper comparisons between journals because PLOS was reshaped in 2009 [ 24 ].

The variables PubMed identifier (PMID), journal name, article title, author names, publication year, citation, PubMed Central identifier (PMCID) and digital object identifier (DOI) were extracted from the Medline search. From the Web of Science, we reduced available information to journal name, article title, PMID, abstract for the identification of original research articles, DOI and publication date. Both PMID and DOI were used to merge articles identified in Medline (n = 8396) and the Web of Science (n = 10267). Articles being listed with an abstract remained in the data set, while articles only listed in the Web of Science were excluded. Articles being only downloaded in the Medline files were checked whether they were indeed original research articles. If not, they were excluded as well. After data cleaning, a set of 8096 articles was available.

Evaluation of title content and form

To investigate title content and form, we randomly selected 500 original articles from the years 2011 to 2020. The random selection was done with stratification by journal and year so that ten original articles per year (100 articles per journal) were randomly chosen. To avoid a priori information on the specific journal article, only the title and the PMID were presented in the database. In addition, the order of the 500 articles was randomized prior to evaluation. All article titles were evaluated manually by two raters/authors. Both raters performed a training and independently evaluated 25 randomly selected journal articles—five per journal—prior to the evaluation of the 500 articles. These training articles were excluded from the main evaluation. Conflicts in ratings were solved by agreement.

Items for title content and form are displayed in Table 1 and were inspired by other works [ 15 , 25 , 26 ]. One reviewer asked for the discoverability in each of the title items, therefore, we provided two examples of article titles with the result of our evaluation in Table 1 .

The first block of Table 1 reports results on title content. Title content was divided into the topics Methods and Results. The former is concerned with the mentioning of methods in the title, such as the study design or a novel technique used in the paper [ 15 ]. Other elements from the methods concern the mentioning of a patient population, the geography, the clinical context, an intervention, and the use of study names in the title. The latter examines results mentioned in the manuscript. The first question was whether results were stated in the title at all. More detailed were the questions whether quantitative information or semiquantitative or ordinal information was provided [ 26 ]. It was also noted whether the title reported on a relation between two or more variables [ 26 ].

The second block of Table 1 is related to the form of a title divided into the topics Methods, and Conclusion/Discussion. The use of abbreviations, dashes and subtitles was investigated for the Methods. The three single items for Conclusion/Discussion were whether the title was declarative, phrasal, or formulated as a question.

Recently, we performed an analysis after an automatic search for country and city mentioning in the title by the use of the R package maps [ 9 ], and we did not expect substantial differences to our hand search.

Sample size considerations

The main aim of our work was to investigate trends over time by a regression model. In general, regression models have a sufficient sample for a single independent variable, such as time, if n ≈ 50 [ 27 , 28 ]. Specifically, for a weak effect size of R 2 = 0.14 [ 29 ], the required sample size is 51. In case of a weak effect size of Cohen’s f [ 29 ] with f 2 = R 2 / (1 –R 2 ) = 0.14, the required sample size is 403 to achieve a power of 80%. A sample size of 500 as used in our work yields a power of 87.75% at a significance level of 5%.

Descriptive statistics for the specified title properties, i.e., absolute and relative frequencies were reported for each journal over time, refraining of descriptive p-values for investigating journal differences. Fisher’s exact tests were performed at a significance level of 5% to compare the findings of this study with those of Kerans et al. [ 15 , 23 ] regarding methods mentioning, patient population, geography, clinical context, and treatment. Corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were provided. Furthermore, overall tests were performed to compare frequencies of these items between all journals. Bias-corrected Cramérs V effect measures were estimated with corresponding parametric bootstrapped CIs. The DerSimonian and Laird [ 30 ] (DSL) approach was used to perform random effect (RE) meta-analyses, which allows for variability in the variables of interest properties between journals and over time. The logit transformation was used for estimating the pooled proportions [ 31 ], and standard errors were not back-transformed.

The effect of time regarding the specific title properties was investigated by logistic regression models, if appropriate. Post hoc comparisons for the identification of homogeneous subgroups were performed using Tukey’s HSD. Associations between title properties and the journals were analyzed using likelihood ratio tests. Effect estimates, i.e., odds ratios and corresponding 95% CI were reported for all analyses, and the journal BMJ was used as reference category. An odds ratio of x.x being greater than 1 indicates an x.x fold increased chance containing the specific item for an one-year difference adjusted for the variable journal.

Data and R code for all analyses are provided in S1 and S2 Files , respectively.

A total of 500 randomly selected original research articles from 5 medical journals were analyzed regarding the selected title items (see Table 1 ) . In Table 2 , the descriptive statistics, i.e., absolute and relative frequencies for all title properties over the years are shown, respectively for each journal. Results of the meta-analyses are provided in detail in S3 File , sections 4 and 5 .

Absolute and relative frequencies (parenthesis) are shown.

JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, NEJM: The New England Journal of Medicine, PLOS: PLOS Medicine.

Items–Content

In terms of the title content topic methods, the NEJM deviated from the other journals regarding the methods mentioning. While methods were mentioned in at least 93% of the article titles in BMJ, Lancet and PLOS, about the half (47%) was in JAMA and 11% in NEJM article titles. Similar results were reported by Kerans et al. [ 15 , 23 ] for BMJ, JAMA and Lancet, but proportions differed between Lancet titles ( Table 3 ). The mentioning of methods increased over time (OR: 1.12 (95% CI: [1.01‒1.24]), p = 0.025, Fig 1 and S3 File , section 6.1.1 ), i.e., methods were mentioned more frequently in the article titles more recently.

Displayed are odds ratios (square) per increase by one year, corresponding 95% confidence intervals (whisker) and p-values (numbers).

Corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) are shown in brackets. Results of PLOS Medicine are missing because Kerans et al. did not examine article titles of this journal.

JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, NEJM: The New England Journal of Medicine. 1 p-values from Fisher exact test; frequencies were compared within a journal for the respective variable. 2 Cramérs V (bias-corrected); CIs calculated by bootstrapping (normal approximation, 100 replications), 3 p-values from Fisher-Freeman-Halton exact test; frequencies were compared between all journals within the respective study

Lowest and highest numbers for the mentioning of the patient population were in the BMJ (62%) and the NEJM (78%), respectively. For the mentioning of the patient population, neither an increase over time (OR: 1.06 (95% CI: [0.99‒1.13]), p = 0.100, Fig 1 ) nor substantial differences between the journals ( S3 File , section 6.1.2 ) could be observed.

About half of the PLOS titles (52%) contained any geographic information, but only 31% of the BMJ titles (see Table 2 ). Frequencies were only 16% and 17% for JAMA and Lancet, respectively, and 9% for NEJM titles. These findings are in line with Kerans et al. [ 15 , 23 ], except for the BMJ, where Kerans et al. observed that 15.8% of the articles mentioned geographic information ( Table 3 ). Mentioning of geographic information varied over time both within each journal ( S3 File , section 4.1.3.1) and over the journals ( S3 File , section 4.1.3.2 ). This is consistent with the results from the logistic regression analysis (OR: 1.07 (95% CI: [0.99‒1.16]), p = 0.072, Fig 1 and S3 File , section 6.1.3 ).

The clinical context was mentioned in 73% of BMJ titles, while it was mentioned at least 80% in the other four journals. This is in line with Kerans et al. [ 15 , 23 ] ( Table 3 ). Additionally, we observed an increase of clinical context mentioning over time (OR: 1.10 (95% CI: [1.01‒1.19]), p = 0.025, Fig 1 and S3 File , section 6.1.4 ).

Only 27% in PLOS and 30% in BMJ provided some treatment information in the title, while for the other three journals at least 50% of the article titles mentioned a treatment. Our results did not show any differences from those of Kerans et al. [ 15 , 23 ] ( Table 3 ). Over time the naming of treatments in the title increased (OR: 1.08 (95% CI: [1.02‒1.16]), p = 0.015, Fig 1 and S3 File , section 6.1.5 ).

There was no NEJM title containing a study name while Lancet had the highest usage of it (45%). The analysis over time showed a trend over time (OR: 1.13 (95% CI: [1.03‒1.24]), p = 0.008) and substantial differences between the journals ( S3 File , section 6.1.6 ).

Regarding the title topic results, only 6 out of the total of 500 articles mentioned results in their titles. This is in line with the findings of Kerans et al. [ 15 , 23 ], who reported that 1.9% of NEJM titles mentioned results. No article provided any quantitative information in its title, and only 4 of 500 articles provided semi-quantitative information in their title. Because of very low numbers, no further analyses were performed for these criteria.

A relation between variables was used least frequently in the NEJM (23%), followed by the Lancet (35%). The other three journals mentioned a relation in more than half of the articles ( Table 2 ). These differences between journals were confirmed in regression analysis ( S3 File , section 6.2.4 ). However, an increase over time could not be observed (p = 0.858, Fig 1 ).

Items–Form

In terms of the title form topic methods, abbreviations were less used in NEJM titles and most used in Lancet titles, 24% and 55 respectively (see Table 2 ). An increase use over time was observed (OR: 1.13 (95% CI: [1.05‒1.20]), p < 0.001, Fig 1 ) as well as differences between journals ( S3 File , section 7.1.1) .

Dashes were rarely used. Only three articles in BMJ and two articles in NEJM used a dash ( Table 2 ). Further analyses were not performed because of these low frequencies.

A subtitle was used in at least 98% of the articles in BMJ, Lancet, and PLOS, while only 41% of JAMA titles and only 2% of NEJM titles used subtitles. These clear differences between the journals were confirmed with the regression analysis ( S3 File , section 7.1.2 ). Moreover, the usage of subtitles increased over time (OR: 1.22 (95% CI: [1.07‒1.38]), p < 0.003 , Fig 1 ).

Finally, regarding the title form topic discussion, not a single article had a declarative title in our analyses ( Table 2 ). Phrasal titles were present in 3% of JAMA, 7% of NEJM, 11% of BMJ, 12% of Lancet, and 15% of PLOS titles. Significant differences between journals could not be observed ( S3 File , section 7.2.2 ). A decrease of phrasal titles over time was observed in the regression analysis (OR: 0.90 (95% CI: [0.81‒1.00]), p < 0.044, Fig 1 and S3 File , section 7.2.2 ).

Only three of 500 article titles were written as a question ( Table 2 ). Kerans et al. [ 15 , 23 ] observed similar low frequencies; and they reported 3.9% for the BMJ and 1.3% for Lancet articles with a question symbol, and none for both JAMA and NEJM ( Table 3 ).

Geographic information–Manual versus automated search with the maps package

The comparison of our hand search on the mentioning of geographic information revealed substantial differences to the automated search with the R package maps [ 9 ].

In detail, respectively, 31% vs. 13% for BMJ, 16% vs. 3% for JAMA, 17% vs. 9% for the Lancet, 9% vs. 3% for the NEJM and 52% vs. 29% for PLOS articles contained any geographical information in their titles for the hand and automatic search. The automated search thus led to fewer titles with any geographic information.

Title content properties varied substantially between original research articles published in the general major medical journals. Furthermore, title content and form changed over time. Differences between journals were specifically observed in the use of subtitles. While almost all articles from the BMJ and PLOS had subtitles, only two of the NEJM articles had a subtitle. Previously, we and others showed that the colon was most used in titles to split a title into multiple parts rather than any other separator [ 9 , 15 , 23 ]. Here, we furthermore showed that the proportion of paper with subtitles increased over time.

Substantial differences between journals were also observed for the mentioning of methods, the patient population, the geography, the interventional treatment, and the use of an abbreviation in the title. In addition, there were substantial differences in the use of a study name in the title. For example, while no article published in the NEJM used a study name, almost half (45%) of the studies in the Lancet used one. Some content criteria were mainly not or rarely used in all considered journals, such as a dash, mentioning of results, using a declarative title, or a question mark. This was in contrast to Paiva, Lima [ 32 ] who showed for PLOS and BMC journals that approximately 40% of the articles mentioned the results, and such articles were more frequently cited than work mentioning methods. In our study, only 6 articles out of 500 mentioned results in the title, while 344 out of the 500 articles mentioned of methods. Our findings are in line with general guidelines that declamatory titles, i.e., titles that give study results should be avoided [ 33 ]; see, e.g., instructions to authors for the Lancet. Authors should thus avoid providing quantitative or semi-quantitative information in the title. In fact, since the title is a one-line summary, the conclusions could be spread out into the world without reading at least the abstract or the full text of the article. Aleixandre-Benavent and colleagues go a step further and provide recommendations what a title should contain, and how it should not be constructed [ 16 ].

Our work focused on the general major medical journals plus the online only journal PLOS. Between the printed journals, there were substantial differences regarding the content of article titles [ 9 ]. One of the reasons could be in the instructions for authors, which differ in the provided information on the construction of a title. Specifically, the NEJM title had the lowest number of frequencies for a couple of criteria, such as the subtitle, methods mentioning, geography, abbreviations, and relation. No NEJM title contained a study name. However, the clinical context and the patient population was most frequently described in NEJM article titles. Differences between printed and online journals were obvious using geographic information in the title or usage of a phrasal title occurring more often in the online journal PLOS.

Subtitles are now more frequently used than a decade ago. Furthermore, the mentioning of methods increased in the 10 years from 2011 to 2020. This change in the title may be caused by the increased use of reporting guidelines, such as the CONSORT statement [ 34 ], which states that a randomized controlled trial should be identifiable as randomized in the title. The instructions for authors of all considered journals state that subtitles should be used for reporting the study design and/or authors should follow the respective reporting guidelines of their study. In fact, authors should look out a copy of the target journal and identify its preferences [ 35 ].

Our results are in line with the recommendations from the journal-specific instructions for authors, except NEJM. The NEJM does not follow the CONSORT statement using subtitles for randomized controlled trials, see also [ 1 ]. For the other four journals, the mentioning of the study design or the type of analysis is almost always done using subtitles as recommended. Furthermore, our results for JAMA using no declarative titles, no results mentioning or using questions in the title match with its recommendations.

Research has so far concentrated on the form of article titles rather than its content. While some authors investigated title content in BMJ, JAMA, Lancet and NEJM for a specific time, generally a single year [ 15 , 23 , 36 ], the development of title content over time has rarely been studied [ 37 ]. A strength of our work thus is the availability of all original articles over a time span of 10 years [ 9 ]. From this database, we randomly selected a subset of articles for manual assessment. These articles were evaluated by two raters according to a pre-specified coding plan with examples and training. Title evaluations were then done blinded by year and journal.

We did not expect different journal-specific frequencies regarding the geographic information in the title compared to our recent work [ 9 ], in which we performed an automatic search for country and city mentioning in the title by the use of the R package maps [ 9 ]. However, frequencies differed substantially. The automated search led to fewer titles with any geographic information. For example, the maps package did not contain countries, such as ‘England’, continents, abbreviation, such as ‘U.S.’, or terms, such as ‘English’. The main reasons for the discrepancies were for the use of country-specific abbreviations and additional country-specific terms. However, other tools or packages might have been more appropriate for the geographical query than the maps package.

One limitation of our study is that we relied on the quality of the data provided by the PubMed database [ 38 ]. Another limitation of our work is that additional variables could have been considered, e.g., more complex title content [ 12 , 16 , 22 ].

A further limitation is the sample size of 500 articles, i.e., 10 articles per journal and year. With a sample size substantially larger than 1000 articles we would have been able to study the association of title characteristics with citation counts. For example, the total sample size of our previous study, which was based on an automated search was 8096 articles [ 9 ]. With 500 articles, 95% confidence intervals are approximately 4 times larger (√8096 / √500 = 4.02), and many results, such as the association between the number of citations would not have been significant. The sample size used in this study is approximately twice that of [ 15 , 23 ], and this study with 500 articles was powered to reliably detect trends over time.

In future research, it would be of interest to analyze the effect of title content properties on citation frequencies. It would also be interesting to compare specific journals with general medical journals.

In conclusion, title content differed substantially between the five major medical journals BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, NEJM and PLOS. Furthermore, title content changed over time. We recommend that authors study titles of articles recently published in their target journal when formulating the manuscript title. Analyses of title content may generally require manual time-consuming inspections.

Supporting information

Funding statement.

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Data Availability

• PLoS One. 2023; 18(6): e0287677.

Decision Letter 0

10 Apr 2023

PONE-D-23-07021Title Content and Form of Original Research Articles in High-Ranked Medical JournalsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ziegler,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 25 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at  gro.solp@enosolp . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Boyen Huang, DDS, MHA, PhD

Academic Editor

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section: 

   "There are no patents, products in development or marketed products to declare. AZ is a licensed Tim Albert trainer and has held several courses in the past based on Albert’s concept."

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests ).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. 

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability .

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories . Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions . Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

Additional Editor Comments:

The major concerns from the reviewers include the sample size, sample selection, and writing style.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Yes

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: I Don't Know

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: No

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This article analyses the titles of articles published in a series of medical journals over time. It is interesting for a consideration of how naming practices affect discoverability and use of research material.

There are, though, a few aspects that need revision:

First, the title of this paper makes reference to “high ranked” medical journals, but there is no definition anywhere of how this ranking is constructed or to what ranking you are referring.

Second, the sample size of 500 is relatively small and limits the general applicability of the findings, as the paper notes. I am unclear as to whether this is too small to be useful/generalizable.

Third, some of the limitations could have been overcome with different computational methods. For example, on page 14 you state that the maps package that you used was not able correctly to identify many locations in article headings. However, other named-entity recognition tools would certainly do a better job of this. For instance, Amazon Comprehend or SageMaker could be appropriate tools here.

Fourth, the language needs careful checking throughout. For instance: “can only adequately [be] measured”; “articles meaning no sentence and no question”; “we did neither observe” → “we observed neither”; “almost the half” → “almost half”.

Fifth, and perhaps most significantly, it would be helpful for the conclusions of this paper to interpret the findings more closely. Why have these changes that you find occurred? What does it mean that subtitles are now more common? How does discoverability work in each of the title types to which you refer?

Finally, you open by stating that the prime driver of picking a good title is so that you can pick up citations and have career progression. This seems a very cynical way of thinking about how to title articles. Scientists and medics should use titles that accurately reflect the content of the work and allow others easily to find and re-use their research. I would suggest amending this opening to incorporate such a stance.

Reviewer #2: The paper titled “Title Content and Form of Original Research Articles in High-Ranked Medical Journals” investigates the differences of title content and form between papers in the medical field and their changes over time. Overall, the paper is well-written and well-argued. The methodology is adequate, and there are an overall coherence and relation to the scope of publication in the Plos One journal. In addition, this manuscript addresses a very interesting issue about the analysis of titles and does so in a very competent technical way. It Is worth mentioning that data and R code are shared.

I do however have a major issue (which in fact, is a minor one). The authors did a huge effort in sharing all the data; however, the results section sometimes it's difficult to follow (the reader should go back and forth checking the tables). I think some (introductory) sentences in some parts of the manuscript will benefit the readability of the text (see my suggestions below).

I will go slightly more into detail with them in the position-specific comments below.

I think the paper would benefit by including some keywords related to the titles (e.g. research article titles or titles). I have reservations about the use of ‘impact’ (I think the authors are not analysing the impact of the papers, e.g. citation impact).

The introduction and background is ok, providing the necessary information leading to the purpose of the study. However, I think the authors could expand a bit more (there are more studies on the topic). See my suggestions below.

P10|Line 56. Indicate that the EQUATOR Network is referred to the reporting health research (e.g. Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network).

P10|Line 33 (and P11|Line 83). “content has rarely been investigated beyond title length”. I slightly disagree with this statement. From a bibliometric perspective, there are many articles that analyse impact (e.g. effect on citations, downloads), sentence types (e.g. informative), the information the author wants to include, and in which order, among others. I would like to suggest the following papers (not included by the authors):

• Aleixandre-Benavent, R., Montalt-Resurecció, V., & Valderrama-Zurián, J. C. (2014). A descriptive study of inaccuracy in article titles on bibliometrics published in biomedical journals. Scientometrics, 101(1), 781–791. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1296-5 .

• Ball, R. (2009). Scholarly communication in transition: The use of question marks in the titles of scientific articles in medicine, life sciences and physics 1966–2005. Scientometrics, 79(3), 667–679. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1984-5 .

• Busch-Lauer, I.-A. (2000). Titles of English and German research papers in medicine and linguistics theses and research articles. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Analysing professional genres (pp. 77–94). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.74.08bus

• Buter, R. K., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2011). Non-alphanumeric characters in titles of scientific publications: An analysis of their occurrence and correlation with citation impact. Journal of Informetrics, 5(4), 608–617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2011.05.008 .

• Haggan, M. (2004). Research paper titles in literature, linguistics and science: Dimensions of attraction. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(2), 293–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166 (03)00090-0

• Nagano, R. L. (2015). Research article titles and disciplinary conventions: A corpus study of eight disciplines. Journal of Academic Writing, 5(1), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.18552/joaw.v5i1.168

• Pearson, W. S. (2021). Quoted speech in linguistics research article titles: patterns of use and effects on citations. Scientometrics, 126(4), 3421-3442.

P10|Line 75. Worth mentioning the Web of Science (1997) which includes the title field tag.

P11|Line 79. Indicate the acronym (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD)). When the authors mention ‘at least two observers should do an independent evaluation where applicable”. Are referring to the article title? (not clear)

P11|Line 84. Correct typo “(2020)compared”.

P12|106-108. The authors mention “Articles being listed with an abstract remained in the data set, while articles only listed in the Web of Science were excluded.”. I suggest indicating the number of papers. Was the abstract used for any purpose?

P12|111. Indicate in this section that ten original articles per year (100 articles per journal) were randomly chosen.

There is a lot of information in this section (Tables and supplementary material), which allows the reproducibility of the findings. However, I think some introductory sentences will benefit the readability of the text (see my suggestions below).

P14|159-160. Although the information is in the Supplementary Material, I suggest introducing a few words (just one or two sentences) about Table 2 (or Descriptive Statistics).

In Table 3, the Plos Medicine journal information is missing in the table.

P14|159-160 “About half of the PLOS titles (52%) contained any geographic information”: missing this information in Table 3 (or indicate the Supplementary table in which this information is displayed).

P16|203. Correct typo ‘ofKerans’.

P16|207. Here, the authors mention the Results/Relation (and not the previous ones, i.e. Results mention, Quantitative information or Semi-quantitative information). I suggest an introductory sentence indicating that ‘In terms of results, etc’. And also pointing out that the other previous items were rarely used.

P16|214. Regarding this information (24%), indicate in brackets Table 2 (or 3.2. Supplementary Table)

P16|224. Indicate that refers to the discussion/conclusion part.

Discussion/Conclusions

Line 19|278-279. Another aspect that should be considered is the title length allowed by each journal (number maximum of words). Also there is of interest the recommendations from the journals (e.g. in the author guidelines). In some journals there is some criteria such as ‘Specific, descriptive, concise, and comprehensible to readers outside the field’ (Plos One), whereas in others it is suggested to include a subtitle (e.g. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/pages/instructions-for-authors ).

Line 20 |321. Another limitation is the variables considered (e.g. some other studies analyse other non-alphanumeric elements such as exclamations, other criteria for the content, etc.)

Line21|333. A sentence about further research could be included.

Reviewer #3: • There was a desire to look at characteristics within journals over time but use of only 10 articles per year seems subject to selection bias for this research question. What was the power consideration here?

• It is not clear how the titles were evaluated. Was it an automated program or each one manually? The samples size is small enough that manual adjudication is possible.

• Line 115. This is confusing. Results are not given for harmonization of classification of various title attributes.

• Reporting of ORs is confusing. For example on line 170, what is the OR for? The proportion listing method per year? Similar in line 188 – you say the rate varied over time, but you used logistic regression assuming an increase over time?

• The results section includes discussion points (like line 202).

• Were any findings linked back to author instructions for each journal? These often dictate title content.

• Linking the metrics assessed to citation counts would add an important dimension to the significance of this research.

• There is too much repetition of p values in the Discussion. I assume these were not presenting new analyses not shown in the results. It is not appropriate. Line 312 – they do report new analyses. It should be part of the study of not (unless published elsewhere).

• The Discussion is too long.

• The recommendation near the end that authors study titles in their target journals before submission is unfounded. Title is often dictated by author guidelines or changed during peer review. They did not study this particular question – in other words, they did not study title of rejected compared to accepted articles.

Reviewer #4: This study applies what are in my opinion very sound methodologies to analyze the titles of prestigious, general medical journals. The paper is well-written, and its significance lays on going beyond other studies in investigating titles’ form & content and the development of title content over time. To do so, they had to select a representative sample of articles over a period of 10 years. Having two (trained) raters made the methodology strong, as it was the methodology followed in the “Evaluation of title content and form” section. (I have to admit, however, that I lack the expertise to say that the statistical analyses have been performed appropriately and rigorously. So in the following I assume these have been done correctly.) By following this well-crafted methodology, and providing all the relevant data, the code to analyze it, and in detail results in the supplementary materials, the conclusions arrived at are well supported (see some comments below, though) and could be replicated by others.

I do have some specific concerns or comments that I would like the authors to address:

1. I think the authors should stick to the wording “general major medical journals” instead of “highly ranked” as they don’t define which “rank” that is or where it can be found or calculated.

2. Mentioning of guidelines for authors writing the papers in the journals analyzed was not mentioned at all ---even as it is mentioned in the literature they quote. I think this is important as to it may be determining why authors use a particular way to phrase the title. The reader is left to assume that no guidance was provided by the journal that could have biased title wording. I think this to be particularly important for the use or avoidance of abbreviations, dashes, and/or subtitles.

3. The authors recommendation “We recommend that authors study titles of articles recently published in their target journal when formulating the manuscript title” does not seem supported other than by their results implying this is what you find in them already. So, why should you follow the same? Would that make it more likely to be published? The paper’s introduction makes reference to increasing citation frequency in databases, and so does at least one of the authors’ previous papers, yet it’s never mentioned explicitly as a possible outcome of choosing title according to the journal to submit.

4. Regarding their recommendation “In our opinion, authors should avoid providing quantitative or semi-quantitative information in the title. In fact, since the title is a one-line summary, the conclusions could be spread out into the world without reading at least the abstract or the full text of the article. ”I think this argument should expand as to what the consequences are in following this behavior e.g. propagation of misinformation.

5. In their statement “Another limitation of our study is that we relied on the quality of the data provided by the database of PubMed. Specifically, we may have missed some original articles in our database search. And we have previously identified a couple of errors in the database (Heßler and Ziegler, 2022).” One shouldn’t expect the reader to go their paper for finding out what was wrong with those hits/articles.

6. Finally, author AZ declares, in the competing interests field, that he's a "licensed Tim Albert trainer and has held several courses in the past based on Albert’s concept." Please consider adding the statement that (at least some of the) Tim Albert trainings deal with advising people how to write medical papers.

P.S. There are a few typos, like missing words and letters, that need to be corrected throughout the manuscript.

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article ( what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #4: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool,  https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at  gro.solp@serugif . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Author response to Decision Letter 0

22 May 2023

See separate document

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_V01.pdf

Decision Letter 1

12 Jun 2023

Title Content and Form of Original Research Articles in General Major Medical Journals

PONE-D-23-07021R1

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ , click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at gro.solp@gnillibrohtua .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact gro.solp@sserpeno .

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: I have read the second revision of this manuscript and, in my opinion, the authors have addressed the main issues and provided a satisfactory answer in their response.

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article ( what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Acceptance letter

15 Jun 2023

Dear Dr. Ziegler:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact gro.solp@sserpeno .

If we can help with anything else, please email us at gro.solp@enosolp .

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr Boyen Huang

• West Coast University Libraries
• Research Guides
• Find Materials
• West Coast University
• Research Help

WCU FAQs: Research Help

• APA and Citations
• General Education Classes
• Library Login and Information
• Program-Specific Classes
• Technology Help
• WCU General Information
• Writing and Tutoring Help
• 26 A-Z Database List
• 3 Academic Search Complete
• 1 Acland's Video Atlas of Human Anatomy
• 1 Alexander Street Academic Video
• 1 Authority
• 1 Business Administration
• 2 Business Source Complete
• 1 Credible or Reliable
• 31 Databases
• 2 Dentistry Oral Sciences
• 1 Evaluating Resources
• 3 Evidence based
• 13 Full Text
• 1 Hein Online or HeinOnline
• 1 Integrative Review
• 3 Interlibrary Loan or ILL
• 21 Journal Articles
• 13 Library Catalog
• 1 Library ID
• 1 Library Information
• 1 Link or URL
• 1 Literature Review
• 1 Mergent Intellect
• 2 MESH or mesh
• 2 NURS 350 or N350
• 2 Nursing Reference Center Plus
• 2 Off-campus
• 8 Opposing Viewpoints
• 5 Original Research
• 8 Peer reviewed
• 4 Primary Source
• 14 Proquest
• 3 Qualitative
• 3 Quantitative
• 10 Reference
• 1 Relevance
• 28 Research
• 13 Research Guides
• 1 Research Paper
• 4 Search or Searching
• 1 Secondary Source
• 4 Statistics
• 2 Subject Headings or Subject Terms
• 1 Up To Date

Research Help Question

Research help answer.

Many original research articles are not labeled as original research articles.  Original research articles include a research question or hypothesis.  They usually contain most of the following sections: methods, results, discussion, conclusion and references.  An original research article is written by the person or people that conducted the experiment or observations.  Original research articles are considered empirical or primary sources and present an original study.

Articles that look at multiple studies are not considered original research articles.  Search library databases using keywords like “study or “case study” to increase your chances of locating original research articles. 

For information on how to find an original research article that is not meta-analysis, not meta-synthesis and not mixed method, go to  https://westcoastuniversitylibrary.libanswers.com/research/faq/291851 .

Related Topics

• A-Z Database List
• Journal Articles
• Library Catalog
• Peer reviewed
• Primary Source
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
• Original Research
• Opposing Viewpoints

Have a Question?

• Share on Facebook

Was this helpful? Yes 0 No 0

• Become Involved |
• Give to the Library |
• Staff Directory |
• UNF Library
• Thomas G. Carpenter Library

Original Research

How can i tell if the article is original research.

• Glossary of Terms
• What are Peer Reviewed/Refereed Articles?

Chat With Us Text Us (904) 507-4122   Email Us Schedule a Research Consultation

Visit us on social media!

What is Original Research?

Original research is considered a primary source.

An article is considered original research if...

• it is the report of a study written by the researchers who actually did the study.
• the researchers describe their hypothesis or research question and the purpose of the study.
• the researchers detail their research methods.
• the results of the research are reported.
• the researchers interpret their results and discuss possible implications.

There is no one way to easily tell if an article is a research article like there is for peer-reviewed articles in the Ulrich's database. The only way to be sure is to read the article to verify that it is written by the researchers and that they have explained all of their findings, in addition to listing their methodologies, results, and any conclusions based on the evidence collected. 

All that being said, there are a few key indicators that will help you to quickly decide whether or not your article is based on original research. 

• Literature Review or Background
• Conclusions
• Read through the abstract (summary) before you attempt to find the full-text PDF. The abstract of the article usually contains those subdivision headings where each of the key sections are summarized individually. 
• Use the checkbox with CINAHL's advanced search to only see articles that have been tagged as research articles.   
• Next: Glossary of Terms >>
• Last Updated: Feb 7, 2022 11:44 AM
• URL: https://libguides.unf.edu/originalresearch

Original Research Articles

Preparing your manuscript.

The title page should:

• present a title that includes, if appropriate, the study design
• if a collaboration group should be listed as an author, please list the Group name as an author. If you would like the names of the individual members of the Group to be searchable through their individual PubMed records, please include this information in the “Acknowledgements” section in accordance with the instructions below
• Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT , do not currently satisfy our authorship criteria . Notably an attribution of authorship carries with it accountability for the work, which cannot be effectively applied to LLMs. Use of an LLM should be properly documented in the Methods section (and if a Methods section is not available, in a suitable alternative part) of the manuscript
• indicate the corresponding author

The abstract should not exceed 350 words. Please minimize the use of abbreviations and do not cite references in the abstract. The abstract must include the following separate sections:

• Background : the context and purpose of the study
• Results : the main findings
• Conclusions : a brief summary and potential implications

Three to ten keywords representing the main content of the article.

The Background section should explain the background to the study, its aims, a summary of the existing literature and why this study was necessary.

This should include the findings of the study including, if appropriate, results of statistical analysis which must be included either in the text or as tables and figures.

For research articles this section should discuss the implications of the findings in context of existing research and highlight limitations of the study. For study protocols and methodology manuscripts this section should include a discussion of any practical or operational issues involved in performing the study and any issues not covered in other sections.

Conclusions

This should state clearly the main conclusions and provide an explanation of the importance and relevance of the study to the field.

Methods (can also be placed after Background)

The methods section should include:

• the aim, design and setting of the study
• the characteristics of participants or description of materials
• a clear description of all processes, interventions and comparisons. Generic names should generally be used. When proprietary brands are used in research, include the brand names in parentheses
• the type of statistical analysis used, including a power calculation if appropriate

List of abbreviations

If abbreviations are used in the text they should be defined in the text at first use, and a list of abbreviations should be provided.

Declarations

All manuscripts must contain the following sections under the heading 'Declarations':

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Consent for publication.

• Availability of data and material

Competing interests

Authors' contributions, acknowledgements.

• Authors' information (optional)

Please see below for details on the information to be included in these sections.

If any of the sections are not relevant to your manuscript, please include the heading and write 'Not applicable' for that section.

Manuscripts reporting studies involving human participants, human data or human tissue must:

• include a statement on ethics approval and consent (even where the need for approval was waived)
• include the name of the ethics committee that approved the study and the committee’s reference number if appropriate

Studies involving animals must include a statement on ethics approval.

See our  editorial policies  for more information.

If your manuscript does not report on or involve the use of any animal or human data or tissue, please state “Not applicable” in this section.

If your manuscript contains any individual person’s data in any form (including individual details, images or videos), consent to publish must be obtained from that person, or in the case of children, their parent or legal guardian. All presentations of case reports must have consent to publish.

You can use your institutional consent form if you prefer. You should not send the form to us on submission, but we may request to see a copy at any stage (including after publication).

See our  editorial policies  for more information on consent for publication.

If your manuscript does not contain data from any individual person, please state “Not applicable” in this section.

Availability of data and materials

All manuscripts must include an ‘Availability of data and materials’ statement. Data availability statements should include information on where data supporting the results reported in the article can be found including, where applicable, hyperlinks to publicly archived datasets analysed or generated during the study. By data we mean the minimal dataset that would be necessary to interpret, replicate and build upon the findings reported in the article. We recognise it is not always possible to share research data publicly, for instance when individual privacy could be compromised, and in such instances data availability should still be stated in the manuscript along with any conditions for access.

Data availability statements can take one of the following forms (or a combination of more than one if required for multiple datasets):

• The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available in the [NAME] repository, [PERSISTENT WEB LINK TO DATASETS]
• The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
• All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].
• The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due [REASON WHY DATA ARE NOT PUBLIC] but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
• Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
• The data that support the findings of this study are available from [third party name] but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the current study, and so are not publicly available. Data are however available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of [third party name].
• Not applicable. If your manuscript does not contain any data, please state 'Not applicable' in this section.

More examples of template data availability statements, which include examples of openly available and restricted access datasets, are available  here .

SpringerOpen  also requires that authors cite any publicly available data on which the conclusions of the paper rely in the manuscript. Data citations should include a persistent identifier (such as a DOI) and should ideally be included in the reference list. Citations of datasets, when they appear in the reference list, should include the minimum information recommended by DataCite and follow journal style. Dataset identifiers including DOIs should be expressed as full URLs. For example:

Hao Z, AghaKouchak A, Nakhjiri N, Farahmand A. Global integrated drought monitoring and prediction system (GIDMaPS) data sets. figshare. 2014.  http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.853801

With the corresponding text in the Availability of data and materials statement:

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available in the [NAME] repository, [PERSISTENT WEB LINK TO DATASETS]. [Reference number]

All financial and non-financial competing interests must be declared in this section.

See our  editorial policies  for a full explanation of competing interests. If you are unsure whether you or any of your co-authors have a competing interest please contact the editorial office.

Please use the authors’ initials to refer to each authors' competing interests in this section.

If you do not have any competing interests, please state "The authors declare that they have no competing interests" in this section.

All sources of funding for the research reported should be declared. The role of the funding body in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript should be declared.

The individual contributions of authors to the manuscript should be specified in this section. Guidance and criteria for authorship can be found in our  editorial policies .

Please use initials to refer to each author's contribution in this section, for example: "FC analyzed and interpreted the patient data regarding the hematological disease and the transplant. RH performed the histological examination of the kidney, and was a major contributor in writing the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript."

Please acknowledge anyone who contributed towards the article who does not meet the criteria for authorship including anyone who provided professional writing services or materials.

Authors should obtain permission to acknowledge from all those mentioned in the Acknowledgements section.

See our  editorial policies  for a full explanation of acknowledgements and authorship criteria.

If you do not have anyone to acknowledge, please write "Not applicable" in this section.

Group authorship (for manuscripts involving a collaboration group): if you would like the names of the individual members of a collaboration Group to be searchable through their individual PubMed records, please ensure that the title of the collaboration Group is included on the title page and in the submission system and also include collaborating author names as the last paragraph of the “Acknowledgements” section. Please add authors in the format First Name, Middle initial(s) (optional), Last Name. You can add institution or country information for each author if you wish, but this should be consistent across all authors.

Please note that individual names may not be present in the PubMed record at the time a published article is initially included in PubMed as it takes PubMed additional time to code this information.

Authors' information

This section is optional.

You may choose to use this section to include any relevant information about the author(s) that may aid the reader's interpretation of the article, and understand the standpoint of the author(s). This may include details about the authors' qualifications, current positions they hold at institutions or societies, or any other relevant background information. Please refer to authors using their initials. Note this section should not be used to describe any competing interests.

Footnotes should be designated within the text using a superscript number. It is not allowed to use footnotes for references/citations.

Radiochemistry Nomenclature Guidelines

The EJNMMI Journal Family endorses the application of the International Consensus Radiochemistry Nomenclature Guidelines for contributions to the journals. A three page summary of the guidelines, highlighting the most relevant issues used in the notation of radiopharmaceuticals and related terms, is available at EJNMMI Radiopharmacy and Chemistry . The Editors-in-Chief of the EJNMMI Journal Family strongly recommend all manuscripts meet these guidelines submission, and all reviewers are asked to check, wherever possible, that the guidelines are followed. Their endorsement can be found here . 

The full paper with all recommendations is published in “Consensus nomenclature rules for radiopharmaceutical chemistry — setting the record straight”, Coenen and Gee et al. (2017), Nuclear Medicine and Biology   here .

Examples of the Vancouver reference style are shown below. 

See our editorial policies for author guidance on good citation practice.

Web links and URLs: All web links and URLs, including links to the authors' own websites, should be given a reference number and included in the reference list rather than within the text of the manuscript. They should be provided in full, including both the title of the site and the URL, as well as the date the site was accessed, in the following format: The Mouse Tumor Biology Database. http://tumor.informatics.jax.org/mtbwi/index.do . Accessed 20 May 2013. If an author or group of authors can clearly be associated with a web link, such as for weblogs, then they should be included in the reference.

Example reference style:

Article within a journal

Smith JJ. The world of science. Am J Sci. 1999;36:234-5.

Article within a journal (no page numbers)

Rohrmann S, Overvad K, Bueno-de-Mesquita HB, Jakobsen MU, Egeberg R, Tjønneland A, et al. Meat consumption and mortality - results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. BMC Medicine. 2013;11:63.

Article within a journal by DOI

Slifka MK, Whitton JL. Clinical implications of dysregulated cytokine production. Dig J Mol Med. 2000; doi:10.1007/s801090000086.

Article within a journal supplement

Frumin AM, Nussbaum J, Esposito M. Functional asplenia: demonstration of splenic activity by bone marrow scan. Blood 1979;59 Suppl 1:26-32.

Book chapter, or an article within a book

Wyllie AH, Kerr JFR, Currie AR. Cell death: the significance of apoptosis. In: Bourne GH, Danielli JF, Jeon KW, editors. International review of cytology. London: Academic; 1980. p. 251-306.

OnlineFirst chapter in a series (without a volume designation but with a DOI)

Saito Y, Hyuga H. Rate equation approaches to amplification of enantiomeric excess and chiral symmetry breaking. Top Curr Chem. 2007. doi:10.1007/128_2006_108.

Complete book, authored

Blenkinsopp A, Paxton P. Symptoms in the pharmacy: a guide to the management of common illness. 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Science; 1998.

Online document

Doe J. Title of subordinate document. In: The dictionary of substances and their effects. Royal Society of Chemistry. 1999. http://www.rsc.org/dose/title of subordinate document. Accessed 15 Jan 1999.

Online database

Healthwise Knowledgebase. US Pharmacopeia, Rockville. 1998. http://www.healthwise.org. Accessed 21 Sept 1998.

Supplementary material/private homepage

Doe J. Title of supplementary material. 2000. http://www.privatehomepage.com. Accessed 22 Feb 2000.

University site

Doe, J: Title of preprint. http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/mydata.html (1999). Accessed 25 Dec 1999.

Doe, J: Trivial HTTP, RFC2169. ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2169.txt (1999). Accessed 12 Nov 1999.

Organization site

ISSN International Centre: The ISSN register. http://www.issn.org (2006). Accessed 20 Feb 2007.

Dataset with persistent identifier

Zheng L-Y, Guo X-S, He B, Sun L-J, Peng Y, Dong S-S, et al. Genome data from sweet and grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). GigaScience Database. 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.5524/100012 .

General formatting information

Manuscripts must be written in concise English. For help on scientific writing, or preparing your manuscript in English, please see Springer's  Author Academy .

Quick points:

• Use double line spacing
• Include line and page numbering
• Use SI units: Please ensure that all special characters used are embedded in the text, otherwise they will be lost during conversion to PDF
• Do not use page breaks in your manuscript

File formats

The following word processor file formats are acceptable for the main manuscript document:

• Microsoft word (DOC, DOCX)
• Rich text format (RTF)
• TeX/LaTeX 

Please note: editable files are required for processing in production. If your manuscript contains any non-editable files (such as PDFs) you will be required to re-submit an editable file if your manuscript is accepted.

For more information, see ' Preparing figures ' below.

Additional information for TeX/LaTeX users

You are encouraged to use the Springer Nature LaTeX template when preparing a submission. A PDF of your manuscript files will be compiled during submission using pdfLaTeX and TexLive 2021. All relevant editable source files must be uploaded during the submission process. Failing to submit these source files will cause unnecessary delays in the production process.  

Style and language

For editors and reviewers to accurately assess the work presented in your manuscript you need to ensure the English language is of sufficient quality to be understood. If you need help with writing in English you should consider:

• Getting a fast, free online grammar check .
• Visiting the English language tutorial which covers the common mistakes when writing in English.
• Asking a colleague who is proficient in English to review your manuscript for clarity.
• Using a professional language editing service where editors will improve the English to ensure that your meaning is clear and identify problems that require your review. Two such services are provided by our affiliates Nature Research Editing Service and American Journal Experts . SpringerOpen authors are entitled to a 10% discount on their first submission to either of these services. To claim 10% off English editing from Nature Research Editing Service, click here . To claim 10% off American Journal Experts, click here .

Please note that the use of a language editing service is not a requirement for publication in EJNMMI Research and does not imply or guarantee that the article will be selected for peer review or accepted.  为便于编辑和评审专家准确评估您稿件中陈述的研究工作，您需要确保文稿英语语言质量足以令人理解。如果您需要英文写作方面的帮助，您可以考虑：

• 获取快速、免费的在线  语法检查 。
• 查看一些有关英语写作中常见语言错误的 教程 。
• 请一位以英语为母语的同事审阅您的稿件是否表意清晰。
• 使用专业语言编辑服务，编辑人员会对英语进行润色，以确保您的意思表达清晰，并提出需要您复核的问题。例如我们的附属机构 Nature Research Editing Service 以及合作伙伴 American Journal Experts 都可以提供此类专业服务。SpringerOpen作者享受首次订单10%优惠，该优惠同时适用于两家公司。您只需点击以下链接即可开始。使用 Nature Research Editing Service的编辑润色10%的优惠服务，请点击 这里 。使用 American Journal Experts的10%优惠服务，请点击 这里 。

请注意，使用语言编辑服务并非在期刊上发表文章的必要条件，这也并不意味或保证文章将被选中进行同行评议或被接受。 エディターと査読者があなたの論文を正しく評価するには、使用されている英語の質が十分であることが必要とされます。英語での論文執筆に際してサポートが必要な場合には、次のオプションがあります：

• 高速なオンライン  文法チェック  を無料で受ける。
• 英語で執筆する際のよくある間違いに関する 英語のチュートリアル を参照する。
• 英語を母国語とする同僚に、原稿内の英語が明確であるかをチェックしてもらう。
• プロの英文校正サービスを利用する。校正者が原稿の意味を明確にしたり、問題点を指摘し、英語を向上させます。 Nature Research Editing Service と American Journal Experts の2つは弊社と提携しているサービスです。SpringerOpenのジャーナルの著者は、いずれかのサービスを初めて利用する際に、10%の割引を受けることができます。Nature Research Editing Serviceの10%割引を受けるには、 こちらをクリックしてください 。. American Journal Expertsの10%割引を受けるには、 こちらをクリックしてください 。

英文校正サービスの利用は、このジャーナルに掲載されるための条件ではないこと、また論文審査や受理を保証するものではないことに留意してください。 영어 원고의 경우, 에디터 및 리뷰어들이 귀하의 원고에 실린 결과물을 정확하게 평가할 수 있도록, 그들이 충분히 이해할 수 있을 만한 수준으로 작성되어야 합니다. 만약 영작문과 관련하여 도움을 받기를 원하신다면 다음의 사항들을 고려하여 주십시오:

• 영어 튜토리얼 페이지 에 방문하여 영어로 글을 쓸 때 자주하는 실수들을 확인합니다.
• 귀하의 원고의 표현을 명확히 해줄 영어 원어민 동료를 찾아서 리뷰를 의뢰합니다
• 리뷰에 대비하여, 원고의 의미를 명확하게 해주고 리뷰에서 요구하는 문제점들을 식별해서 영문 수준을 향상시켜주는 전문 영문 교정 서비스를 이용합니다. Nature Research Editing Service 와 American Journal Experts 에서 저희와 협약을 통해 서비스를 제공하고 있습니다. SpringerOpen에서는 위의 두 가지의 서비스를 첫 논문 투고를 위해 사용하시는 경우, 10%의 할인을 제공하고 있습니다. Nature Research Editing Service이용시 10% 할인을 요청하기 위해서는 여기 를 클릭해 주시고, American Journal Experts 이용시 10% 할인을 요청하기 위해서는 여기 를 클릭해 주십시오.

영문 교정 서비스는 게재를 위한 요구사항은 아니며, 해당 서비스의 이용이 피어 리뷰에 논문이 선택되거나 게재가 수락되는 것을 의미하거나 보장하지 않습니다.

Data and materials

For all journals, SpringerOpen strongly encourages all datasets on which the conclusions of the manuscript rely to be either deposited in publicly available repositories (where available and appropriate) or presented in the main paper or additional supporting files, in machine-readable format (such as spread sheets rather than PDFs) whenever possible. Please see the list of recommended repositories in our editorial policies.

For some journals, deposition of the data on which the conclusions of the manuscript rely is an absolute requirement. Please check the Instructions for Authors for the relevant journal and article type for journal specific policies.

For all manuscripts, information about data availability should be detailed in an ‘Availability of data and materials’ section. For more information on the content of this section, please see the Declarations section of the relevant journal’s Instruction for Authors. For more information on SpringerOpen's policies on data availability, please see our editorial policies .

Formatting the 'Availability of data and materials' section of your manuscript

The following format for the 'Availability of data and materials section of your manuscript should be used:

"The dataset(s) supporting the conclusions of this article is(are) available in the [repository name] repository, [unique persistent identifier and hyperlink to dataset(s) in http:// format]."

The following format is required when data are included as additional files:

"The dataset(s) supporting the conclusions of this article is(are) included within the article (and its additional file(s))."

For databases, this section should state the web/ftp address at which the database is available and any restrictions to its use by non-academics.

For software, this section should include:

• Project name: e.g. My bioinformatics project
• Project home page: e.g. http://sourceforge.net/projects/mged
• Archived version: DOI or unique identifier of archived software or code in repository (e.g. enodo)
• Operating system(s): e.g. Platform independent
• Programming language: e.g. Java
• Other requirements: e.g. Java 1.3.1 or higher, Tomcat 4.0 or higher
• License: e.g. GNU GPL, FreeBSD etc.
• Any restrictions to use by non-academics: e.g. licence needed

Information on available repositories for other types of scientific data, including clinical data, can be found in our editorial policies .

What should be cited?

Only articles, clinical trial registration records and abstracts that have been published or are in press, or are available through public e-print/preprint servers, may be cited.

Unpublished abstracts, unpublished data and personal communications should not be included in the reference list, but may be included in the text and referred to as "unpublished observations" or "personal communications" giving the names of the involved researchers. Obtaining permission to quote personal communications and unpublished data from the cited colleagues is the responsibility of the author. Either footnotes or endnotes are permitted. Journal abbreviations follow Index Medicus/MEDLINE.

Any in press articles cited within the references and necessary for the reviewers' assessment of the manuscript should be made available if requested by the editorial office.

Preparing figures

When preparing figures, please follow the formatting instructions below.

• Figure titles (max 15 words) and legends (max 300 words) should be provided in the main manuscript, not in the graphic file.
• Tables should NOT be submitted as figures but should be included in the main manuscript file.
• Multi-panel figures (those with parts a, b, c, d etc.) should be submitted as a single composite file that contains all parts of the figure.
• Figures should be numbered in the order they are first mentioned in the text, and uploaded in this order.
• Figures should be uploaded in the correct orientation.
• Figure keys should be incorporated into the graphic, not into the legend of the figure.
• Each figure should be closely cropped to minimize the amount of white space surrounding the illustration. Cropping figures improves accuracy when placing the figure in combination with other elements when the accepted manuscript is prepared for publication on our site. For more information on individual figure file formats, see our detailed instructions.
• Individual figure files should not exceed 10 MB. If a suitable format is chosen, this file size is adequate for extremely high quality figures.
• Please note that it is the responsibility of the author(s) to obtain permission from the copyright holder to reproduce figures (or tables) that have previously been published elsewhere. In order for all figures to be open access, authors must have permission from the rights holder if they wish to include images that have been published elsewhere in non open access journals. Permission should be indicated in the figure legend, and the original source included in the reference list.

Figure file types

We accept the following file formats for figures:

• EPS (suitable for diagrams and/or images)
• PDF (suitable for diagrams and/or images)
• Microsoft Word (suitable for diagrams and/or images, figures must be a single page)
• PowerPoint (suitable for diagrams and/or images, figures must be a single page)
• TIFF (suitable for images)
• JPEG (suitable for photographic images, less suitable for graphical images)
• PNG (suitable for images)
• BMP (suitable for images)
• CDX (ChemDraw - suitable for molecular structures)

Figure size and resolution

Figures are resized during publication of the final full text and PDF versions to conform to the SpringerOpen standard dimensions, which are detailed below.

Figures on the web:

• width of 600 pixels (standard), 1200 pixels (high resolution).

Figures in the final PDF version:

• width of 85 mm for half page width figure
• width of 170 mm for full page width figure
• maximum height of 225 mm for figure and legend
• image resolution of approximately 300 dpi (dots per inch) at the final size

Figures should be designed such that all information, including text, is legible at these dimensions. All lines should be wider than 0.25 pt when constrained to standard figure widths. All fonts must be embedded.

Figure file compression

Vector figures should if possible be submitted as PDF files, which are usually more compact than EPS files.

• TIFF files should be saved with LZW compression, which is lossless (decreases file size without decreasing quality) in order to minimize upload time.
• JPEG files should be saved at maximum quality.
• Conversion of images between file types (especially lossy formats such as JPEG) should be kept to a minimum to avoid degradation of quality.

If you have any questions or are experiencing a problem with figures, please contact the customer service team at [email protected] .

Preparing tables

When preparing tables, please follow the formatting instructions below.

• Tables should be numbered and cited in the text in sequence using Arabic numerals (i.e. Table 1, Table 2 etc.).
• Tables less than one A4 or Letter page in length can be placed in the appropriate location within the manuscript.
• Tables larger than one A4 or Letter page in length can be placed at the end of the document text file. Please cite and indicate where the table should appear at the relevant location in the text file so that the table can be added in the correct place during production.
• Larger datasets, or tables too wide for A4 or Letter landscape page can be uploaded as additional files. Please see [below] for more information.
• Tabular data provided as additional files can be uploaded as an Excel spreadsheet (.xls ) or comma separated values (.csv). Please use the standard file extensions.
• Table titles (max 15 words) should be included above the table, and legends (max 300 words) should be included underneath the table.
• Tables should not be embedded as figures or spreadsheet files, but should be formatted using ‘Table object’ function in your word processing program.
• Color and shading may not be used. Parts of the table can be highlighted using superscript, numbering, lettering, symbols or bold text, the meaning of which should be explained in a table legend.
• Commas should not be used to indicate numerical values.

If you have any questions or are experiencing a problem with tables, please contact the customer service team at [email protected] .

Preparing additional files

As the length and quantity of data is not restricted for many article types, authors can provide datasets, tables, movies, or other information as additional files.

All Additional files will be published along with the accepted article. Do not include files such as patient consent forms, certificates of language editing, or revised versions of the main manuscript document with tracked changes. Such files, if requested, should be sent by email to the journal’s editorial email address, quoting the manuscript reference number.

Results that would otherwise be indicated as "data not shown" should be included as additional files. Since many web links and URLs rapidly become broken, SpringerOpen requires that supporting data are included as additional files, or deposited in a recognized repository. Please do not link to data on a personal/departmental website. Do not include any individual participant details. The maximum file size for additional files is 20 MB each, and files will be virus-scanned on submission. Each additional file should be cited in sequence within the main body of text.

Submit manuscript

• Editorial Board
• Sign up for article alerts and news from this journal

Annual Journal Metrics

2022 Citation Impact 3.2 - 2-year Impact Factor 3.3 - 5-year Impact Factor 0.932 - SNIP (Source Normalized Impact per Paper) 0.853 - SJR (SCImago Journal Rank)

2023 Speed 12 days submission to first editorial decision for all manuscripts (Median) 87 days submission to accept (Median)

2023 Usage  604,325 downloads 175 Altmetric mentions 

• More about our metrics
• Follow us on Twitter
• Follow us on Facebook
• ISSN: 2191-219X (electronic)

Affiliated with

European Association of Nuclear Medicine

Visit and follow the  EANM  on their social media channels:

• Privacy Policy

Home » Original Research – Definition, Examples, Guide

Original Research – Definition, Examples, Guide

Table of Contents

Original Research

Definition:

Original research refers to a type of research that involves the collection and analysis of new and original data to answer a specific research question or to test a hypothesis. This type of research is conducted by researchers who aim to generate new knowledge or add to the existing body of knowledge in a particular field or discipline.

Types of Original Research

There are several types of original research that researchers can conduct depending on their research question and the nature of the data they are collecting. Some of the most common types of original research include:

Basic Research

This type of research is conducted to expand scientific knowledge and to create new theories, models, or frameworks. Basic research often involves testing hypotheses and conducting experiments or observational studies.

Applied Research

This type of research is conducted to solve practical problems or to develop new products or technologies. Applied research often involves the application of basic research findings to real-world problems.

Exploratory Research

This type of research is conducted to gather preliminary data or to identify research questions that need further investigation. Exploratory research often involves collecting qualitative data through interviews, focus groups, or observations.

Descriptive Research

This type of research is conducted to describe the characteristics or behaviors of a population or a phenomenon. Descriptive research often involves collecting quantitative data through surveys, questionnaires, or other standardized instruments.

Correlational Research

This type of research is conducted to determine the relationship between two or more variables. Correlational research often involves collecting quantitative data and using statistical analyses to identify correlations between variables.

Experimental Research

This type of research is conducted to test cause-and-effect relationships between variables. Experimental research often involves manipulating one or more variables and observing the effect on an outcome variable.

Longitudinal Research

This type of research is conducted over an extended period of time to study changes in behavior or outcomes over time. Longitudinal research often involves collecting data at multiple time points.

Original Research Methods

Original research can involve various methods depending on the research question, the nature of the data, and the discipline or field of study. However, some common methods used in original research include:

This involves the manipulation of one or more variables to test a hypothesis. Experimental research is commonly used in the natural sciences, such as physics, chemistry, and biology, but can also be used in social sciences, such as psychology.

Observational Research

This involves the collection of data by observing and recording behaviors or events without manipulation. Observational research can be conducted in the natural setting of the behavior or in a laboratory setting.

Survey Research

This involves the collection of data from a sample of participants using questionnaires or interviews. Survey research is commonly used in social sciences, such as sociology, political science, and economics.

Case Study Research

This involves the in-depth analysis of a single case, such as an individual, organization, or event. Case study research is commonly used in social sciences and business studies.

Qualitative research

This involves the collection and analysis of non-numerical data, such as interviews, focus groups, and observation notes. Qualitative research is commonly used in social sciences, such as anthropology, sociology, and psychology.

Quantitative research

This involves the collection and analysis of numerical data using statistical methods. Quantitative research is commonly used in natural sciences, such as physics, chemistry, and biology, as well as in social sciences, such as psychology and economics.

Researchers may also use a combination of these methods in their original research depending on their research question and the nature of their data.

Data Collection Methods

There are several data collection methods that researchers can use in original research, depending on the nature of the research question and the type of data that needs to be collected. Some of the most common data collection methods include:

• Surveys : Surveys involve asking participants to respond to a series of questions about their attitudes, behaviors, beliefs, or experiences. Surveys can be conducted in person, over the phone, through email, or online.
• Interviews : Interviews involve asking participants open-ended questions about their experiences, beliefs, or behaviors. Interviews can be conducted in person, over the phone, or through video conferencing.
• Observations : Observations involve observing and recording participants’ behaviors or interactions in a natural or laboratory setting. Observations can be conducted using structured or unstructured methods.
• Experiments : Experiments involve manipulating one or more variables and observing the effect on an outcome variable. Experiments can be conducted in a laboratory or in the natural environment.
• Case studies: Case studies involve conducting an in-depth analysis of a single case, such as an individual, organization, or event. Case studies can involve the collection of qualitative or quantitative data.
• Focus groups: Focus groups involve bringing together a small group of participants to discuss a specific topic or issue. Focus groups can be conducted in person or online.
• Document analysis: Document analysis involves collecting and analyzing written or visual materials, such as reports, memos, or videos, to answer research questions.

Data Analysis Methods

Once data has been collected in original research, it needs to be analyzed to answer research questions and draw conclusions. There are various data analysis methods that researchers can use, depending on the type of data collected and the research question. Some common data analysis methods used in original research include:

• Descriptive statistics: This involves using statistical measures such as mean, median, mode, and standard deviation to describe the characteristics of the data.
• Inferential statistics: This involves using statistical methods to infer conclusions about a population based on a sample of data.
• Regression analysis: This involves examining the relationship between two or more variables by using statistical models that predict the value of one variable based on the value of one or more other variables.
• Content analysis: This involves analyzing written or visual materials, such as documents, videos, or social media posts, to identify patterns, themes, or trends.
• Qualitative analysis: This involves analyzing non-numerical data, such as interview transcripts or observation notes, to identify themes, patterns, or categories.
• Grounded theory: This involves developing a theory or model based on the data collected in the study.
• Mixed methods analysis: This involves combining quantitative and qualitative data analysis methods to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the research question.

How to Conduct Original Research

Conducting original research involves several steps that researchers need to follow to ensure that their research is valid, reliable, and produces meaningful results. Here are some general steps that researchers can follow to conduct original research:

• Identify the research question: The first step in conducting original research is to identify a research question that is relevant, significant, and feasible. The research question should be specific and focused to guide the research process.
• Conduct a literature review: Once the research question is identified, researchers should conduct a thorough literature review to identify existing research on the topic. This will help them identify gaps in the existing knowledge and develop a research plan that builds on previous research.
• Develop a research plan: Researchers should develop a research plan that outlines the methods they will use to collect and analyze data. The research plan should be detailed and include information on the population and sample, data collection methods, data analysis methods, and ethical considerations.
• Collect data: Once the research plan is developed, researchers can begin collecting data using the methods identified in the plan. It is important to ensure that the data collection process is consistent and accurate to ensure the validity and reliability of the data.
• Analyze data: Once the data is collected, researchers should analyze it using appropriate data analysis methods. This will help them answer the research question and draw conclusions from the data.
• Interpret results: After analyzing the data, researchers should interpret the results and draw conclusions based on the findings. This will help them answer the research question and make recommendations for future research or practical applications.
• Communicate findings: Finally, researchers should communicate their findings to the appropriate audience using a format that is appropriate for the research question and audience. This may include writing a research paper, presenting at a conference, or creating a report for a client or stakeholder.

Purpose of Original Research

The purpose of original research is to generate new knowledge and understanding in a particular field of study. Original research is conducted to address a research question, hypothesis, or problem and to produce empirical evidence that can be used to inform theory, policy, and practice. By conducting original research, researchers can:

• Expand the existing knowledge base: Original research helps to expand the existing knowledge base by providing new information and insights into a particular phenomenon. This information can be used to develop new theories, models, or frameworks that explain the phenomenon in greater depth.
• Test existing theories and hypotheses: Original research can be used to test existing theories and hypotheses by collecting empirical evidence and analyzing the data. This can help to refine or modify existing theories, or to develop new ones that better explain the phenomenon.
• Identify gaps in the existing knowledge: Original research can help to identify gaps in the existing knowledge base by highlighting areas where further research is needed. This can help to guide future research and identify new research questions that need to be addressed.
• Inform policy and practice: Original research can be used to inform policy and practice by providing empirical evidence that can be used to make decisions and develop interventions. This can help to improve the quality of life for individuals and communities, and to address social, economic, and environmental challenges.

How to publish Original Research

Publishing original research involves several steps that researchers need to follow to ensure that their research is accepted and published in reputable academic journals. Here are some general steps that researchers can follow to publish their original research:

• Select a suitable journal: Researchers should identify a suitable academic journal that publishes research in their field of study. The journal should have a good reputation and a high impact factor, and should be a good fit for the research topic and methods used.
• Review the submission guidelines: Once a suitable journal is identified, researchers should review the submission guidelines to ensure that their manuscript meets the journal’s requirements. The guidelines may include requirements for formatting, length, and content.
• Write the manuscript : Researchers should write the manuscript in accordance with the submission guidelines and academic standards. The manuscript should include a clear research question or hypothesis, a description of the research methods used, an analysis of the data collected, and a discussion of the results and their implications.
• Submit the manuscript: Once the manuscript is written, researchers should submit it to the selected journal. The submission process may require the submission of a cover letter, abstract, and other supporting documents.
• Respond to reviewer feedback: After the manuscript is submitted, it will be reviewed by experts in the field who will provide feedback on the quality and suitability of the research. Researchers should carefully review the feedback and revise the manuscript accordingly.
• Respond to editorial feedback: Once the manuscript is revised, it will be reviewed by the journal’s editorial team who will provide feedback on the formatting, style, and content of the manuscript. Researchers should respond to this feedback and make any necessary revisions.
• Acceptance and publication: If the manuscript is accepted, the journal will inform the researchers and the manuscript will be published in the journal. If the manuscript is not accepted, researchers can submit it to another journal or revise it further based on the feedback received.

How to Identify Original Research

To identify original research, there are several factors to consider:

• The research question: Original research typically starts with a novel research question or hypothesis that has not been previously explored or answered in the existing literature.
• The research design: Original research should have a clear and well-designed research methodology that follows appropriate scientific standards. The methodology should be described in detail in the research article.
• The data: Original research should include new data that has not been previously published or analyzed. The data should be collected using appropriate research methods and analyzed using valid statistical methods.
• The results: Original research should present new findings or insights that have not been previously reported in the existing literature. The results should be presented clearly and objectively, and should be supported by the data collected.
• The discussion and conclusions: Original research should provide a clear and objective interpretation of the results, and should discuss the implications of the research findings. The discussion and conclusions should be based on the data collected and the research question or hypothesis.
• The references: Original research should be supported by references to existing literature, which should be cited appropriately in the research article.

Advantages of Original Research

Original research has several advantages, including:

• Generates new knowledge: Original research is conducted to answer novel research questions or hypotheses, which can generate new knowledge and insights into various fields of study.
• Supports evidence-based decision making: Original research provides empirical evidence that can inform decision-making in various fields, such as medicine, public policy, and business.
• Enhances academic and professional reputation: Conducting original research and publishing in reputable academic journals can enhance a researcher’s academic and professional reputation.
• Provides opportunities for collaboration: Original research can provide opportunities for collaboration between researchers, institutions, and organizations, which can lead to new partnerships and research projects.
• Advances scientific and technological progress: Original research can contribute to scientific and technological progress by providing new knowledge and insights into various fields of study, which can inform further research and development.
• Can lead to practical applications: Original research can have practical applications in various fields, such as medicine, engineering, and social sciences, which can lead to new products, services, and policies that benefit society.

Limitations of Original Research

Original research also has some limitations, which include:

• Time and resource constraints: Original research can be time-consuming and expensive, requiring significant resources to design, execute, and analyze the research data.
• Ethical considerations: Conducting original research may raise ethical considerations, such as ensuring the privacy and confidentiality of research participants, obtaining informed consent, and avoiding conflicts of interest.
• Risk of bias: Original research may be subject to biases, such as selection bias, measurement bias, and publication bias, which can affect the validity and reliability of the research findings.
• Generalizability: Original research findings may not be generalizable to larger populations or different contexts, which can limit the applicability of the research findings.
• Replicability: Original research may be difficult to replicate, which can limit the ability of other researchers to verify the research findings.
• Limited scope: Original research may have a limited scope, focusing on a specific research question or hypothesis, which can limit the breadth of the research findings.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Documentary Research – Types, Methods and...

Scientific Research – Types, Purpose and Guide

Humanities Research – Types, Methods and Examples

Historical Research – Types, Methods and Examples

Artistic Research – Methods, Types and Examples

Research articles

Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy as first line treatment for advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, epidural analgesia during labour and severe maternal morbidity, exposure to antibiotics during pregnancy or early infancy and risk of neurodevelopmental disorders, clinical and healthcare use outcomes after cessation of long term opioid treatment due to prescriber workforce exit, effect of the hpv vaccination programme on incidence of cervical cancer by socioeconomic deprivation in england, long acting progestogens vs combined oral contraceptive pill for preventing recurrence of endometriosis related pain, ultra-processed food consumption and all cause and cause specific mortality, comparative effectiveness of second line oral antidiabetic treatments among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus, efficacy of psilocybin for treating symptoms of depression, reverse total shoulder replacement versus anatomical total shoulder replacement for osteoarthritis, effect of combination treatment with glp-1 receptor agonists and sglt-2 inhibitors on incidence of cardiovascular and serious renal events, prenatal opioid exposure and risk of neuropsychiatric disorders in children, temporal trends in lifetime risks of atrial fibrillation and its complications, antipsychotic use in people with dementia, predicting the risks of kidney failure and death in adults with moderate to severe chronic kidney disease, impact of large scale, multicomponent intervention to reduce proton pump inhibitor overuse, esketamine after childbirth for mothers with prenatal depression, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist use and risk of thyroid cancer, use of progestogens and the risk of intracranial meningioma, delirium and incident dementia in hospital patients, derivation and external validation of a simple risk score for predicting severe acute kidney injury after intravenous cisplatin, quality and safety of artificial intelligence generated health information, large language models and the generation of health disinformation, 25 year trends in cancer incidence and mortality among adults in the uk, cervical pessary versus vaginal progesterone in women with a singleton pregnancy, comparison of prior authorization across insurers, diagnostic accuracy of magnetically guided capsule endoscopy with a detachable string for detecting oesophagogastric varices in adults with cirrhosis, ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes, added benefit and revenues of oncology drugs approved by the ema, exposure to air pollution and hospital admission for cardiovascular diseases, short term exposure to low level ambient fine particulate matter and natural cause, cardiovascular, and respiratory morbidity, optimal timing of influenza vaccination in young children, effect of exercise for depression, association of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease with cardiovascular disease and all cause death in patients with type 2 diabetes, duration of cpr and outcomes for adults with in-hospital cardiac arrest, clinical effectiveness of an online physical and mental health rehabilitation programme for post-covid-19 condition, atypia detected during breast screening and subsequent development of cancer, publishers’ and journals’ instructions to authors on use of generative ai in academic and scientific publishing, effectiveness of glp-1 receptor agonists on glycaemic control, body weight, and lipid profile for type 2 diabetes, neurological development in children born moderately or late preterm, invasive breast cancer and breast cancer death after non-screen detected ductal carcinoma in situ, all cause and cause specific mortality in obsessive-compulsive disorder, acute rehabilitation following traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation, perinatal depression and risk of mortality, undisclosed financial conflicts of interest in dsm-5-tr, effect of risk mitigation guidance opioid and stimulant dispensations on mortality and acute care visits, update to living systematic review on sars-cov-2 positivity in offspring and timing of mother-to-child transmission, perinatal depression and its health impact, christmas 2023: common healthcare related instruments subjected to magnetic attraction study, using autoregressive integrated moving average models for time series analysis of observational data, demand for morning after pill following new year holiday, christmas 2023: christmas recipes from the great british bake off, effect of a doctor working during the festive period on population health: experiment using doctor who episodes, christmas 2023: analysis of barbie medical and science career dolls, christmas 2023: effect of chair placement on physicians’ behavior and patients’ satisfaction, management of chronic pain secondary to temporomandibular disorders, christmas 2023: projecting complete redaction of clinical trial protocols, christmas 2023: a drug target for erectile dysfunction to help improve fertility, sexual activity, and wellbeing, christmas 2023: efficacy of cola ingestion for oesophageal food bolus impaction, conservative management versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in adults with gallstone disease, social media use and health risk behaviours in young people, untreated cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 and cervical cancer, air pollution deaths attributable to fossil fuels, implementation of a high sensitivity cardiac troponin i assay and risk of myocardial infarction or death at five years, covid-19 vaccine effectiveness against post-covid-19 condition, association between patient-surgeon gender concordance and mortality after surgery, intravascular imaging guided versus coronary angiography guided percutaneous coronary intervention, treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men in primary care using a conservative intervention, autism intervention meta-analysis of early childhood studies, effectiveness of the live zoster vaccine during the 10 years following vaccination, effects of a multimodal intervention in primary care to reduce second line antibiotic prescriptions for urinary tract infections in women, pyrotinib versus placebo in combination with trastuzumab and docetaxel in patients with her2 positive metastatic breast cancer, association of dcis size and margin status with risk of developing breast cancer post-treatment, racial differences in low value care among older patients in the us, pharmaceutical industry payments and delivery of low value cancer drugs, rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin in adults with coronary artery disease, clinical effectiveness of septoplasty versus medical management for nasal airways obstruction, ultrasound guided lavage with corticosteroid injection versus sham lavage with and without corticosteroid injection for calcific tendinopathy of shoulder, early versus delayed antihypertensive treatment in patients with acute ischaemic stroke, mortality risks associated with floods in 761 communities worldwide, interactive effects of ambient fine particulate matter and ozone on daily mortality in 372 cities, association between changes in carbohydrate intake and long term weight changes, future-case control crossover analysis for adjusting bias in case crossover studies, association between recently raised anticholinergic burden and risk of acute cardiovascular events, suboptimal gestational weight gain and neonatal outcomes in low and middle income countries: individual participant data meta-analysis, efficacy and safety of an inactivated virus-particle vaccine for sars-cov-2, effect of invitation letter in language of origin on screening attendance: randomised controlled trial in breastscreen norway, visits by nurse practitioners and physician assistants in the usa, non-erosive gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and oesophageal adenocarcinoma, venous thromboembolism with use of hormonal contraception and nsaids, food additive emulsifiers and risk of cardiovascular disease, balancing risks and benefits of cannabis use, promoting activity, independence, and stability in early dementia and mild cognitive impairment, effect of home cook interventions for salt reduction in china, cancer mortality after low dose exposure to ionising radiation, effect of a smartphone intervention among university students with unhealthy alcohol use, long term risk of death and readmission after hospital admission with covid-19 among older adults, mortality rates among patients successfully treated for hepatitis c, association between antenatal corticosteroids and risk of serious infection in children, follow us on, content links.

• Collections
• Health in South Asia
• Women’s, children’s & adolescents’ health
• News and views
• BMJ Opinion
• Rapid responses
• Editorial staff
• BMJ in the USA
• BMJ in South Asia
• Submit your paper
• BMA members
• Subscribers
• Advertisers and sponsors

Explore BMJ

• Our company
• BMJ Careers
• BMJ Learning
• BMJ Masterclasses
• BMJ Journals
• BMJ Student
• Academic edition of The BMJ
• BMJ Best Practice
• The BMJ Awards
• Email alerts
• Activate subscription

Information

ENGL 101/102

• Background information and exploring your topic
• Make a great research question

Finding original research articles

• Searching Syntax This link opens in a new window
• Citations Guide
• Does NJIT have it?
• Interlibrary Loan This link opens in a new window
• Assignment Tips

Finding Research Articles About Your Topic

What kind of research has been done on your topic? Where can you find original research articles that have been published in peer-reviewed journals?  Use this page to learn about sources for finding peer-reviewed original research articles . Also, learn about  the nature and characteristics of peer-reviewed and original research articles.

Best bets for Original Research Articles-- Library databases for ENGL102

<p>Also explore the <a href="https://researchguides.njit.edu/az.php">Library&#39;s AZ Database list </a>to find scholarly resources dedicated to specific subjects (Psychology, Education, Transportation, etc.)</p>

Also explore the Library's A-Z Database list to find scholarly resources dedicated to specific subjects (Psychology, Education, Transportation, etc.)

Understanding Peer Review and Original Research

Understanding what peer review is all about.

What is a peer-reviewed article anyways? What is the big deal about peer review? What is it? How does it work? Why do my instructors ask me to find peer-reviewed articles to use in my paper? If an article has been "Peer reviewed" it has earned a kind of authority and credibility from an academic/scientific community. It's a process that research has to go through before it is published. When we're talking about peer review, we're usually talking about scholarly and academic publications. They are usually original research -- research that's never been done before.  

Consult these sources to learn more about it:

Learn about peer review -- and its imperfections -- by watching All About Peer Review , a video from the CSUDH Library. Consult the Research Guide on Peer Review from NJIT Library to learn more. Watch Peer Review in 5 minutes from NCSU Library to learn more about the process of peer review and how to identify peer reviewed research. Read the information sheet What's the Difference? from Purdue University. Look over the peer-review process infographic on the LibGuide from UC San Diego. Want to learn more? Read Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques & A Survival Guide for an extensive and in-depth treatment of peer review including its history and problems.

What do peer-reviewed articles look like?

What do peer reviewed articles look like.

Probably the most known peer-reviewed journal is Nature . Take a look at the current issue of Nature -- notice that it has all kinds of articles of interest to a lot of people -- news, editorials, book reviews. Take a look at the "Research Articles" section. There you will see the peer reviewed articles from Nature such as: Physiological measurements in social acceptance of self driving technologies Modeling innovation in the cryptocurrency ecosystem Human preferences toward algorithmic bias in a word association task Notice that the articles have a "received" or "submitted", "accepted by" and "published" dates. These are the marking of peer reviewed articles -- finding these dates can be a quick and easy way of identifying peer-reviewed research. These articles also describe an original scientific study or experiment. They follow the scientific method and have sections with names like "Introduction", "Methodology", "Results", etc. Peer-reviewed articles often, but don't always, have multiple authors whose affiliations are given in the article.

• << Previous: Make a great research question
• Next: Searching Syntax >>
• Last Updated: May 3, 2024 9:43 AM
• URL: https://researchguides.njit.edu/engl101-2

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

Research articles

Asymmetric hydrogenation of ketimines with minimally different alkyl groups.

• Mingyang Wang

Stereospecific alkenylidene homologation of organoboronates by S N V reaction

• Christian D. Knox
• Guangbin Dong

Bitter taste TAS2R14 activation by intracellular tastants and cholesterol

• Xiaolong Hu
• Zhi-Jie Liu

Legionella effector LnaB is a phosphoryl-AMPylase that impairs phosphosignalling

• Xiaonan Song
• Yongqun Zhu

Mapping model units to visual neurons reveals population code for social behaviour

A deep neural network with ‘knockout training’ is used to model sensorimotor transformations and neural perturbations of male Drosophila melanogaster during visually guided social behaviour and provides predictions and insights into relationships between stimuli, neurons and behaviour.

• Benjamin R. Cowley
• Adam J. Calhoun
• Mala Murthy

The solar dynamo begins near the surface

Simple analytic estimates and detailed numerical calculations show that the solar dynamo begins near the surface, rather than at the much-deeper tachocline.

• Geoffrey M. Vasil
• Daniel Lecoanet
• Keith Julien

Life-cycle-coupled evolution of mitosis in close relatives of animals

We analyse cell division in ichthyosporeans and find that multinucleated life cycles favour the evolution of closed mitosis, in which the cell constructs a spindle within an intact nucleus.

• Marine Olivetta

Natural proteome diversity links aneuploidy tolerance to protein turnover

Proteomic data from natural isolates of Saccharomyces cerevisiae provide insight into how these cells tolerate aneuploidy (an imbalance in the number of chromosomes), and reveal differences between lab-engineered aneuploids and diverse natural yeasts.

• Julia Muenzner
• Pauline Trébulle
• Markus Ralser

Covalent targeted radioligands potentiate radionuclide therapy

Radiopharmaceuticals engineered with click chemistry to selectively bind to tumour-specific proteins can be used to successfully target tumour cells, boosting the pharmacokinetics of radionuclide therapy and improving tumour regression.

• Xi-Yang Cui

Transcranial volumetric imaging using a conformal ultrasound patch

A conformal ultrasound patch can be used for hands-free volumetric imaging and continuous monitoring of cerebral blood flow

• Xiaoxiang Gao

Lense–Thirring precession after a supermassive black hole disrupts a star

The accretion disk from a star tidally disrupted by a supermassive black hole undergoes Lense–Thirring precession with strong, quasi-periodic X-ray flux and temperature modulations.

• Dheeraj R. Pasham
• Michal Zajaček
• Michael Loewenstein

Distinct µ-opioid ensembles trigger positive and negative fentanyl reinforcement

Experiments using fentanyl treatment of mice show that µ-opioid receptors mediate positive reinforcement in the ventral tegmental area and negative reinforcement in central amygdala, thereby identifying the circuits that lead to opioid addiction.

• Fabrice Chaudun
• Laurena Python
• Christian Lüscher

Adhesive anti-fibrotic interfaces on diverse organs

A study shows that implants with an adhesive implant–tissue interface mitigate the formation of a fibrous capsule when attached to various organs in mice, rats and pigs.

• Jingjing Wu
• Xuanhe Zhao

Osmosensor-mediated control of Ca 2+ spiking in pollen germination

Screening in Escherichia coli and biochemical experiments show that in Arabidopsis thaliana , OSCA2.1 and OSCA2.2 function as plant sensors of hypo-osmolarity, utilize Ca 2+ oscillations as second messengers and have crucial roles in pollen germination.

Porous isoreticular non-metal organic frameworks

The use of computational crystal-structure prediction has enabled the targeted assembly of frameworks of porous organic ammonium halide salts that have many of the qualities of metal–organic frameworks despite containing no metal.

• Megan O’Shaughnessy
• Joseph Glover
• Andrew I. Cooper

Capturing electron-driven chiral dynamics in UV-excited molecules

Time-resolved photoelectron circular dichroism with a temporal resolution of 2.9 fs is used to track the ultrafast electron dynamics following ultraviolet excitation of neutral chiral molecules, which generate chiral currents that exhibit periodic rotation direction reversal.

• Vincent Wanie
• Etienne Bloch
• Francesca Calegari

Structural insights into the cross-exon to cross-intron spliceosome switch

Cryo-electron microscopy structures of cross-exon pre-B and B-like complexes contribute new insights into the molecular mechanisms that mediate the switch from a cross-exon to a cross-intron organized spliceosome.

• Zhenwei Zhang
• Vinay Kumar
• Reinhard Lührmann

A whole-slide foundation model for digital pathology from real-world data

Prov-GigaPath, a whole-slide pathology foundation model pretrained on a large dataset containing around 1.3 billion pathology images, attains state-of-the-art performance in cancer classification and pathomics tasks.

• Naoto Usuyama
• Hoifung Poon

Imaging surface structure and premelting of ice Ih with atomic resolution

Atomic-resolution imaging of the surface structure of hexagonal water ice is achieved using cryogenic atomic force microscopy, providing a molecular perspective on the origin and mechanism of of ice premelting.

Acquisition of epithelial plasticity in human chronic liver disease

Single-cell RNA sequencing and 3D imaging have revealed the cellular changes and structural reorganization that occur during the progression of human chronic liver disease and as the liver attempts to regenerate.

• Christopher Gribben
• Vasileios Galanakis
• Ludovic Vallier

Quick links

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

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

Suggestions or feedback?

MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

• Machine learning
• Social justice
• Black holes
• Classes and programs

Departments

• Aeronautics and Astronautics
• Brain and Cognitive Sciences
• Architecture
• Political Science
• Mechanical Engineering

Centers, Labs, & Programs

• Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL)
• Picower Institute for Learning and Memory
• Lincoln Laboratory
• School of Architecture + Planning
• School of Engineering
• School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
• Sloan School of Management
• School of Science
• MIT Schwarzman College of Computing

Adhesive coatings can prevent scarring around medical implants

Press contact :, media download.

*Terms of Use:

Images for download on the MIT News office website are made available to non-commercial entities, press and the general public under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives license . You may not alter the images provided, other than to crop them to size. A credit line must be used when reproducing images; if one is not provided below, credit the images to "MIT."

Previous image Next image

When medical devices such as pacemakers are implanted in the body, they usually provoke an immune response that leads to buildup of scar tissue around the implant. This scarring, known as fibrosis, can interfere with the devices’ function and may require them to be removed.

In an advance that could prevent that kind of device failure, MIT engineers have found a simple and general way to eliminate fibrosis by coating devices with a hydrogel adhesive. This adhesive binds the devices to tissue and prevents the immune system from attacking it.

“The dream of many research groups and companies is to implant something into the body that over the long term the body will not see, and the device can provide therapeutic or diagnostic functionality. Now we have such an ‘invisibility cloak,’ and this is very general: There’s no need for a drug, no need for a special polymer,” says Xuanhe Zhao, an MIT professor of mechanical engineering and of civil and environmental engineering.

The adhesive that the researchers used in this study is made from cross-linked polymers called hydrogels, and is similar to a surgical tape they previously developed to help seal internal wounds. Other types of hydrogel adhesives can also protect against fibrosis, the researchers found, and they believe this approach could be used for not only pacemakers but also sensors or devices that deliver drugs or therapeutic cells.

Zhao and Hyunwoo Yuk SM ’16, PhD ’21, a former MIT research scientist who is now the chief technology officer at SanaHeal, are the senior authors of the study, which appears today in Nature . MIT postdoc Jingjing Wu is the lead author of the paper.

Preventing fibrosis

In recent years, Zhao’s lab has developed adhesives for a variety of medical applications, including double-sided and single-sided tapes that could be used to heal surgical incisions or internal injuries. These adhesives work by rapidly absorbing water from wet tissues, using polyacrylic acid, an absorbent material used in diapers. Once the water is cleared, chemical groups called NHS esters embedded in the polyacrylic acid form strong bonds with proteins at the tissue surface. This process takes about five seconds.

Several years ago, Zhao and Yuk began exploring whether this kind of adhesive could also help keep medical implants in place and prevent fibrosis from occurring.

To test this idea, Wu coated polyurethane devices with their adhesive and implanted them on the abdominal wall, colon, stomach, lung, or heart of rats. Weeks later, they removed the device and found that there was no visible scar tissue. Additional tests with other animal models showed the same thing: Wherever the adhesive-coated devices were implanted, fibrosis did not occur, for up to three months.

“This work really has identified a very general strategy, not only for one animal model, one organ, or one application,” Wu says. “Across all of these animal models, we have consistent, reproducible results without any observable fibrotic capsule.”

Using bulk RNA sequencing and fluorescent imaging, the researchers analyzed the animals’ immune response and found that when devices with adhesive coatings were first implanted, immune cells such as neutrophils began to infiltrate the area. However, the attacks quickly quenched out before any scar tissue could form.

“For the adhered devices, there is an acute inflammatory response because it is a foreign material,” Yuk says. “However, very quickly that inflammatory response decayed, and then from that point you do not have this fibrosis formation.”

One application for this adhesive could be coatings for epicardial pacemakers — devices that are placed on the heart to help control the heart rate. The wires that contact the heart often become fibrotic, but the MIT team found that when they implanted adhesive-coated wires in rats, they remained functional for at least three months, with no scar tissue formation.

“The formation of fibrotic tissue at the interface between implanted medical devices and the target tissue is a longstanding problem that routinely causes failure of the device. The demonstration that robust adhesion between the device and the tissue obviates fibrotic tissue formation is an important observation that has many potential applications in the medical device space,” says David Mooney, a professor of bioengineering at Harvard University, who was not involved in the study.

Mechanical cues

The researchers also tested a hydrogel adhesive that includes chitosan, a naturally occurring polysaccharide, and found that this adhesive also eliminated fibrosis in animal studies. However, two commercially available tissue adhesives that they tested did not show this antifibrotic effect because the commercially available adhesives eventually detached from the tissue and allowed the immune system to attack.

In another experiment, the researchers coated implants in hydrogel adhesives but then soaked them in a solution that removed the polymers’ adhesive properties, while keeping their overall chemical structure the same. After being implanted in the body, where they were held in place by sutures, fibrotic scarring occurred. This suggests that there is something about the mechanical interaction between the adhesive and the tissue that prevents the immune system from attacking, the researchers say.

“Previous research in immunology has been focused on chemistry and biochemistry, but mechanics and physics may play equivalent roles, and we should pay attention to those mechanical and physical cues in immunological responses,” says Zhao, who now plans to further investigate how those mechanical cues affect the immune system.

Yuk, Zhao, and others have started a company called SanaHeal, which is now working on further developing tissue adhesives for medical applications.

“As a team, we are interested in reporting this to the community and sparking speculation and imagination as to where this can go,” Yuk says. “There are so many scenarios in which people want to interface with foreign or manmade material in the body, like implantable devices, drug depots, or cell depots.”

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.

Share this news article on:

Related links.

• Xuanhe Zhao
• Hyunwoo Yuk
• Jingjing Wu
• Department of Mechanical Engineering
• Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Related Topics

• Mechanical engineering
• Civil and environmental engineering
• Biomedical engineering
• Medical devices
• National Institutes of Health (NIH)
• National Science Foundation (NSF)

Related Articles

Engineers develop surgical “duct tape” as an alternative to sutures

Double-sided tape for tissues could replace surgical sutures

Super-strong surgical tape detaches on demand

Paper-folding art inspires better bandages

Previous item Next item

More MIT News

Looking for a specific action in a video? This AI-based method can find it for you

Read full story →

Controlled diffusion model can change material properties in images

Sophia Chen: It’s our duty to make the world better through empathy, patience, and respect

Using art and science to depict the MIT family from 1861 to the present

Convening for cultural change

Q&A: The power of tiny gardens and their role in addressing climate change

• More news on MIT News homepage →

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, USA

• Map (opens in new window)
• Events (opens in new window)
• People (opens in new window)
• Careers (opens in new window)
• Accessibility
• Social Media Hub
• MIT on Facebook
• MIT on YouTube
• MIT on Instagram