scientific writing research paper

How To Write A Research Paper

Step-By-Step Tutorial With Examples + FREE Template

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Expert Reviewer: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | March 2024

For many students, crafting a strong research paper from scratch can feel like a daunting task – and rightly so! In this post, we’ll unpack what a research paper is, what it needs to do , and how to write one – in three easy steps. 🙂 

Overview: Writing A Research Paper

What (exactly) is a research paper.

• How to write a research paper
• Stage 1 : Topic & literature search
• Stage 2 : Structure & outline
• Stage 3 : Iterative writing
• Key takeaways

Let’s start by asking the most important question, “ What is a research paper? ”.

Simply put, a research paper is a scholarly written work where the writer (that’s you!) answers a specific question (this is called a research question ) through evidence-based arguments . Evidence-based is the keyword here. In other words, a research paper is different from an essay or other writing assignments that draw from the writer’s personal opinions or experiences. With a research paper, it’s all about building your arguments based on evidence (we’ll talk more about that evidence a little later).

Now, it’s worth noting that there are many different types of research papers , including analytical papers (the type I just described), argumentative papers, and interpretative papers. Here, we’ll focus on analytical papers , as these are some of the most common – but if you’re keen to learn about other types of research papers, be sure to check out the rest of the blog .

With that basic foundation laid, let’s get down to business and look at how to write a research paper .

Overview: The 3-Stage Process

While there are, of course, many potential approaches you can take to write a research paper, there are typically three stages to the writing process. So, in this tutorial, we’ll present a straightforward three-step process that we use when working with students at Grad Coach.

These three steps are:

• Finding a research topic and reviewing the existing literature
• Developing a provisional structure and outline for your paper, and
• Writing up your initial draft and then refining it iteratively

Let’s dig into each of these.

Need a helping hand?

Step 1: Find a topic and review the literature

As we mentioned earlier, in a research paper, you, as the researcher, will try to answer a question . More specifically, that’s called a research question , and it sets the direction of your entire paper. What’s important to understand though is that you’ll need to answer that research question with the help of high-quality sources – for example, journal articles, government reports, case studies, and so on. We’ll circle back to this in a minute.

The first stage of the research process is deciding on what your research question will be and then reviewing the existing literature (in other words, past studies and papers) to see what they say about that specific research question. In some cases, your professor may provide you with a predetermined research question (or set of questions). However, in many cases, you’ll need to find your own research question within a certain topic area.

Finding a strong research question hinges on identifying a meaningful research gap – in other words, an area that’s lacking in existing research. There’s a lot to unpack here, so if you wanna learn more, check out the plain-language explainer video below.

Once you’ve figured out which question (or questions) you’ll attempt to answer in your research paper, you’ll need to do a deep dive into the existing literature – this is called a “ literature search ”. Again, there are many ways to go about this, but your most likely starting point will be Google Scholar .

If you’re new to Google Scholar, think of it as Google for the academic world. You can start by simply entering a few different keywords that are relevant to your research question and it will then present a host of articles for you to review. What you want to pay close attention to here is the number of citations for each paper – the more citations a paper has, the more credible it is (generally speaking – there are some exceptions, of course).

Ideally, what you’re looking for are well-cited papers that are highly relevant to your topic. That said, keep in mind that citations are a cumulative metric , so older papers will often have more citations than newer papers – just because they’ve been around for longer. So, don’t fixate on this metric in isolation – relevance and recency are also very important.

Beyond Google Scholar, you’ll also definitely want to check out academic databases and aggregators such as Science Direct, PubMed, JStor and so on. These will often overlap with the results that you find in Google Scholar, but they can also reveal some hidden gems – so, be sure to check them out.

Once you’ve worked your way through all the literature, you’ll want to catalogue all this information in some sort of spreadsheet so that you can easily recall who said what, when and within what context. If you’d like, we’ve got a free literature spreadsheet that helps you do exactly that.

Step 2: Develop a structure and outline

With your research question pinned down and your literature digested and catalogued, it’s time to move on to planning your actual research paper .

It might sound obvious, but it’s really important to have some sort of rough outline in place before you start writing your paper. So often, we see students eagerly rushing into the writing phase, only to land up with a disjointed research paper that rambles on in multiple

Now, the secret here is to not get caught up in the fine details . Realistically, all you need at this stage is a bullet-point list that describes (in broad strokes) what you’ll discuss and in what order. It’s also useful to remember that you’re not glued to this outline – in all likelihood, you’ll chop and change some sections once you start writing, and that’s perfectly okay. What’s important is that you have some sort of roadmap in place from the start.

At this stage you might be wondering, “ But how should I structure my research paper? ”. Well, there’s no one-size-fits-all solution here, but in general, a research paper will consist of a few relatively standardised components:

• Introduction
• Literature review
• Methodology

Let’s take a look at each of these.

First up is the introduction section . As the name suggests, the purpose of the introduction is to set the scene for your research paper. There are usually (at least) four ingredients that go into this section – these are the background to the topic, the research problem and resultant research question , and the justification or rationale. If you’re interested, the video below unpacks the introduction section in more detail. 

The next section of your research paper will typically be your literature review . Remember all that literature you worked through earlier? Well, this is where you’ll present your interpretation of all that content . You’ll do this by writing about recent trends, developments, and arguments within the literature – but more specifically, those that are relevant to your research question . The literature review can oftentimes seem a little daunting, even to seasoned researchers, so be sure to check out our extensive collection of literature review content here .

With the introduction and lit review out of the way, the next section of your paper is the research methodology . In a nutshell, the methodology section should describe to your reader what you did (beyond just reviewing the existing literature) to answer your research question. For example, what data did you collect, how did you collect that data, how did you analyse that data and so on? For each choice, you’ll also need to justify why you chose to do it that way, and what the strengths and weaknesses of your approach were.

Now, it’s worth mentioning that for some research papers, this aspect of the project may be a lot simpler . For example, you may only need to draw on secondary sources (in other words, existing data sets). In some cases, you may just be asked to draw your conclusions from the literature search itself (in other words, there may be no data analysis at all). But, if you are required to collect and analyse data, you’ll need to pay a lot of attention to the methodology section. The video below provides an example of what the methodology section might look like.

By this stage of your paper, you will have explained what your research question is, what the existing literature has to say about that question, and how you analysed additional data to try to answer your question. So, the natural next step is to present your analysis of that data . This section is usually called the “results” or “analysis” section and this is where you’ll showcase your findings.

Depending on your school’s requirements, you may need to present and interpret the data in one section – or you might split the presentation and the interpretation into two sections. In the latter case, your “results” section will just describe the data, and the “discussion” is where you’ll interpret that data and explicitly link your analysis back to your research question. If you’re not sure which approach to take, check in with your professor or take a look at past papers to see what the norms are for your programme.

Alright – once you’ve presented and discussed your results, it’s time to wrap it up . This usually takes the form of the “ conclusion ” section. In the conclusion, you’ll need to highlight the key takeaways from your study and close the loop by explicitly answering your research question. Again, the exact requirements here will vary depending on your programme (and you may not even need a conclusion section at all) – so be sure to check with your professor if you’re unsure.

Step 3: Write and refine

Finally, it’s time to get writing. All too often though, students hit a brick wall right about here… So, how do you avoid this happening to you?

Well, there’s a lot to be said when it comes to writing a research paper (or any sort of academic piece), but we’ll share three practical tips to help you get started.

First and foremost , it’s essential to approach your writing as an iterative process. In other words, you need to start with a really messy first draft and then polish it over multiple rounds of editing. Don’t waste your time trying to write a perfect research paper in one go. Instead, take the pressure off yourself by adopting an iterative approach.

Secondly , it’s important to always lean towards critical writing , rather than descriptive writing. What does this mean? Well, at the simplest level, descriptive writing focuses on the “ what ”, while critical writing digs into the “ so what ” – in other words, the implications . If you’re not familiar with these two types of writing, don’t worry! You can find a plain-language explanation here.

Last but not least, you’ll need to get your referencing right. Specifically, you’ll need to provide credible, correctly formatted citations for the statements you make. We see students making referencing mistakes all the time and it costs them dearly. The good news is that you can easily avoid this by using a simple reference manager . If you don’t have one, check out our video about Mendeley, an easy (and free) reference management tool that you can start using today.

Recap: Key Takeaways

We’ve covered a lot of ground here. To recap, the three steps to writing a high-quality research paper are:

• To choose a research question and review the literature
• To plan your paper structure and draft an outline
• To take an iterative approach to writing, focusing on critical writing and strong referencing

Remember, this is just a b ig-picture overview of the research paper development process and there’s a lot more nuance to unpack. So, be sure to grab a copy of our free research paper template to learn more about how to write a research paper.

You Might Also Like:

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

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
• v.25(3); 2014 Oct

How to Write a Scientific Paper: Practical Guidelines

Edgard delvin.

1 Centre de recherche, CHU Sainte-Justine

2 Département de Biochimie, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada

Tahir S. Pillay

3 Department of Chemical Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pretoria

4 Division of Chemical Pathology, University of Cape Town

5 National Health Laboratory Service, CTshwane Academic Division, Pretoria, South Africa

Anthony Newman

6 Life Sciences Department, Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Precise, accurate and clear writing is essential for communicating in health sciences, as publication is an important component in the university criteria for academic promotion and in obtaining funding to support research. In spite of this, the development of writing skills is a subject infrequently included in the curricula of faculties of medicine and allied health sciences. Therefore clinical investigators require tools to fill this gap. The present paper presents a brief historical background to medical publication and practical guidelines for writing scientific papers for acceptance in good journals.

INTRODUCTION

A scientific paper is the formal lasting record of a research process. It is meant to document research protocols, methods, results and conclusions derived from an initial working hypothesis. The first medical accounts date back to antiquity. Imhotep, Pharaoh of the 3 rd Dynasty, could be considered the founder of ancient Egyptian medicine as he has been credited with being the original author of what is now known as the Edwin Smith Papyrus ( Figure 1 ). The Papyrus, by giving some details on cures and anatomical observations, sets the basis of the examination, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of numerous diseases. Closer to the Common Era, in 460 BCE, Hippocrates wrote 70 books on medicine. In 1020, the Golden age of the Muslim Culture, Ibn Sina, known as Avicenna ( Figure 2a ), recorded the Canon of medicine that was to become the most used medical text in Europe and Middle East for almost half a millennium. This was followed in the beginning of the 12 th Century bytheextensivetreatiseofMaimonides( Figure 2b ) (Moses ben Maimon) on Greek and Middle Eastern medicine. Of interest, by the end of the 11 th Century Trotula di Ruggiero, a woman physician, wrote several influential books on women’s ailment. A number of other hallmark treatises also became more accessible, thanks to the introduction of the printing press that allowed standardization of the texts. One example is the De Humani Corporis Fabrica by Vesalius which contains hundreds of illustrations of human dissection. Thomas A Lang provides an excellent concise history of scientific publications [ 1 ]. These were the days when writing and publishing scientific or philosophical works were the privilege of the few and hence there was no or little competition and no recorded peer reviewing system. Times have however changed, and contemporary scientists have to compose with an increasingly harsh competition in attracting editors and publishers attention. As an example, the number of reports and reviews on obesity and diabetes has increased from 400 to close to 4000/year and 50 to 600/year respectively over a period of 20 years ( Figure 3 ). The present article, essentially based on TA Lang’s guide for writing a scientific paper [ 1 ], will summarize the steps involved in the process of writing a scientific report and in increasing the likelihood of its acceptance.

The Edwin Smith Papyrus (≈3000 BCE)

Avicenna and Maimonides

Annual publication load in the field of obesity and diabetes over 20 years.

Reasons for publishing are varied. One may write to achieve a post-graduate degree, to obtain funding for pursuing research or for academic promotion. While all 3 reasons are perfectly legitimate, one must ask whether they are sufficient to be considered by editors, publishers and reviewers. Why then should the scientist write? The main reason is to provide to the scientific community data based on hypotheses that are innovative and thus to advance the understanding in a specific domain. One word of caution however, is that if a set of experiments has not been done or reported, it does not mean that it should be. It may simply reflect a lack of interest in it.

DECIDING ON PUBLISHING AND TARGETING THE JOURNAL

In order to assist with the decision process, pres-ent your work orally first to colleagues in your field who may be more experienced in publishing. This step will help you in gauging whether your work is publishable and in shaping the paper.

Targeting the journal, in which you want to present your data, is also a critical step and should be done before starting to write. One hint is to look for journals that have published similar work to yours, and that aims readers most likely to be interested in your research. This will allow your article to be well read and cited. These journals are also those that you are most likely to read on a regular basis and to cite abundantly. The next step is to decide whether you submit your manuscript to a top-ranking impact factor journal or to a journal of lower prestige. Although it is tempting to test the waters, or to obtain reviewers comments, be realistic about the contribution your work provides and submit to a journal with an appropriate rank.

Do not forget that each rejection delays publication and that the basin of reviewers within your specialty is shallow. Thus repeated submission to different journals could likely result in having your work submitted for review to the same re-viewer.

DECIDING ON THE TYPE OF MANUSCRIPT

There are several types of scientific reports: observational, experimental, methodological, theoretical and review. Observational studies include 1) single-case report, 2) collective case reports on a series of patients having for example common signs and symptoms or being followed-up with similar protocols, 3) cross-sectional, 4) cohort studies, and 5) case-control studies. The latter 3 could be perceived as epidemiological studies as they may help establishing the prevalence of a condition, and identify a defined population with and without a particular condition (disease, injury, surgical complication). Experimental reports deal with research that tests a research hypothesis through an established protocol, and, in the case of health sciences, formulate plausible explanations for changes in biological systems. Methodological reports address for example advances in analytical technology, statistical methods and diagnostic approach. Theoretical reports suggest new working hypotheses and principles that have to be supported or disproved through experimental protocols. The review category can be sub-classified as narrative, systematic and meta-analytic. Narrative reviews are often broad overviews that could be biased as they are based on the personal experience of an expert relying on articles of his or her own choice. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are based on reproducible procedures and on high quality data. Researchers systematically identify and analyze all data collected in articles that test the same working hypothesis, avoiding selection bias, and report the data in a systematic fashion. They are particularly helpful in asking important questions in the field of healthcare and are often the initial step for innovative research. Rules or guidelines in writing such report must be followed if a quality systematic review is to be published.

For clinical research trials and systematic reviews or meta-analyses, use the Consort Statement (Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials) and the PRISMA Statement (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) respectively [ 2 , 3 ]. This assures the editors and the reviewers that essential elements of the trials and of the reviews were tackled. It also speeds the peer review process. There are several other Statements that apply to epidemiological studies [ 4 ], non-randomized clinical trials [ 5 ], diagnostic test development ( 6 ) and genetic association studies ( 7 ). The Consortium of Laboratory Medicine Journal Editors has also published guidelines for reporting industry-sponsored laboratory research ( 8 ).

INITIAL STEPS IN THE PROCESS OF WRITING A SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENT

Literature review is the initial and essential step before starting your study and writing the scientific report based on it. In this process use multiple databases, multiple keyword combinations. It will allow you to track the latest development in your field and thus avoid you to find out that someone else has performed the study before you, and hence decrease the originality of your study. Do not forget that high-ranking research journals publish results of enough importance and interest to merit their publication.

Determining the authorship and the order of authorship, an ethical issue, is the second essential step, and is unfortunately often neglected. This step may avoid later conflicts as, despite existing guidelines, it remains a sensitive issue owing to personal biases and the internal politics of institutions. The International Committee of Medical Editors has adopted the following guidelines for the biomedical sciences ( 9 ).

“Authorship credit should be based only on: 1) Substantial contributions to the conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; 2) Drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and 3) Final approval of the version to be published. Conditions 1, 2 and 3 must be all met. Acquisition of funding, the collections of data, or general supervision of the research group, by themselves, do not justify authorship.” ( 9 , 10 )

The order of authorship should reflect the individual contribution to the research and to the publication, from most to least ( 11 ). The first author usually carries out the lead for the project reported. However the last author is often mistakenly perceived as the senior author. This is perpetuated from the European tradition and is discouraged. As there are divergent conventions among journals, the order of authorship order may or may not reflect the individual contributions; with the exception that the first author should be the one most responsible for the work.

WRITING EFFECTIVELY

Effective writing requires that the text helps the readers 1) understand the content and the context, 2) remember what the salient points are, 3) find the information rapidly and, 4) use or apply the information given. These cardinal qualities should be adorned with the precise usage of the language, clarity of the text, inclu-siveness of the information, and conciseness. Effective writing also means that you have to focus on the potential readers’ needs. Readers in science are informed individuals who are not passive, and who will formulate their own opinion of your writing whether or not the meaning is clear. Therefore you need to know who your audience is. The following 4 questions should help you writing a reader-based text, meaning written to meet the information needs of readers [ 12 ].

What do you assume your readers already know? In other words, which terms and concepts can you use without explanation, and which do you have to define?

What do they want to know? Readers in science will read only if they think they will learn something of value.

What do they need to know? Your text must contain all the information necessary for the reader to understand it, even if you think this information id obvious to them.

What do they think they know that is not so? Correcting misconceptions can be an important function of communication, and persuading readers to change their minds can be a challenging task.

WRITING THE SCIENTIFIC PAPER

Babbs and Tacker ’ s advice to write as much of the paper before performing the research project or experimental protocol may, at first sight, seem unexpected and counterintuitive [ 13 ], but in fact it is exactly what is being done when writing a research grant application. It will allow you to define the authorship alluded to before. The following section will briefly review the structure of the different sections of a manuscript and describe their purpose.

Reading the instructions to authors of the Journal you have decided to submit your manuscript is the first important step. They provide you with the specific requirements such as the way of listing the authors, type of abstract, word, figure or table limits and citation style. The Mulford Library of University of Toledo website contains instructions to authors for over 3000 journals ( http://mulford.meduoiho.edu/instr/ ).

The general organization of an article follows the IMRAD format (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion). These may however vary. For instance, in clinical research or epidemiology studies, the methods section will include details on the subjects included, and there will be a statement of the limitation of the study. Although conclusions may not always be part of the structure, we believe that it should, even in methodological reports.

The tile page provides essential information so that the editor, reviewers, and readers will identify the manuscript and the authors at a glance as well as enabling them to classify the field to which the article pertains.

The title page must contain the following:

• The tile of the article – it is an important part of the manuscript as it is the most often read and will induce the interested readers to pursue further. Therefore the title should be precise, accurate, specific and truthful;
• Each author’s given name (it may be the full name or initials) and family name;
• Each author’s affiliation;
• Some journals ask for highest academic degree;
• A running title that is usually limited to a number of characters. It must relate to the full title;
• Key words that will serve for indexing;
• For clinical studies, the trial’s registration number;
• The name of the corresponding author with full contact information.

The abstract is also an important section of your manuscript. Importantly, the abstract is the part of the article that your peers will see when consulting publication databases such as PubMed. It is the advertisement to your work and will strongly influence the editor deciding whether it will be submitted to reviewers or not. It will also help the readers decide to read the full article. Hence it has to be comprehensible on its own. Writing an abstract is challenging. You have to carefully select the content and, while being concise, assure to deliver the essence of your manuscript.

Without going into details, there are 3 types of abstracts: descriptive, informative and structured. The descriptive abstract is particularly used for theoretical, methodological or review articles. It usually consists of a single paragraph of 150 words or less. The informative abstract, the most common one, contains specific information given in the article and, are organized with an introduction (background, objectives), methods, results and discussion with or without conclusion. They usually are 150 to 250 words in length. The structured abstract is in essence an informative abstract with sections labeled with headings. They may also be longer and are limited to 250 to 300 words. Recent technology also allows for graphical or even video abstracts. The latter are interesting in the context of cell biology as they enable the investigator to illustrate ex vivo experiment results (phagocytosis process for example).

Qualities of abstracts:

• Understood without reading the full paper. Shoul dcontain no abbreviations.lf abbreviations are used, they must be defined. This however removes space for more important information;
• Contains information consistent with the full report. Conclusions in the abstract must match those given in the full report;
• Is attractive and contains information needed to decide whether to read the full report.

Introduction

The introduction has 3 main goals: to establish the need and importance of your research, to indicate how you have filled the knowledge gap in your field and to give your readers a hint of what they will learn when reading your paper. To fulfil these goals, a four-part introduction consisting of a background statement, a problem statement, an activity statement and a forecasting statement, is best suited. Poorly defined background information and problem setting are the 2 most common weaknesses encountered in introductions. They stem from the false perception that peer readers know what the issue is and why the study to solve it is necessary. Although not a strict rule, the introduction in clinical science journals should target only references needed to establish the rationale for the study and the research protocol. This differ from more basic science or cell biology journals, for which a longer and elaborate introduction may be justified because the research at hand consists of several approaches each requiring background and justification.

The 4-part introduction consists of:

• A background statement that provides the context and the approach of the research;
• A problem statement that describes the nature, scope and importance of the problem or the knowledge gap;
• An activity statement, that details the research question, sets the hypothesis and actions undertaken for the investigation;
• A forecasting statement telling the readers whattheywillfìndwhen readingyourarticle [ 14 ].

Methods section

This section may be named “Materials and Methods”, “Experimental section” or “Patients and Methods” depending upon the type of journal. Its purpose to allow your readers to provide enough information on the methods used for your research and to judge on their adequacy. Although clinical and “basic” research protocols differ, the principles involved in describing the methods share similar features. Hence, the breadth of what is being studied and how the study can be performed is common to both. What differ are the specific settings. For example, when a study is conducted on humans, you must provide, up front, assurance that it has received the approval of you Institution Ethics Review Board (IRB) and that participants have provided full and informed consent. Similarly when the study involves animals, you must affirm that you have the agreement from your Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). These are too often forgotten, and Journals (most of them) abiding to the rules of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) will require such statement. Although journals publishing research reports in more fundamental science may not require such assurance, they do however also follow to strict ethics rules related to scientific misconduct or fraud such as data fabrication, data falsification. For clinical research papers, you have to provide information on how the participants were selected, identify the possible sources of bias and confounding factors and how they were diminished.

In terms of the measurements, you have to clearly identify the materials used as well as the suppliers with their location. You should also be unambiguous when describing the analytical method. If the method has already been published, give a brief account and refer to the original publication (not a review in which the method is mentioned without a description). If you have modified it, you have to provide a detailed account of the modifications and you have to validate its accuracy, precision and repeatability. Mention the units in which results are reported and, if necessary, include the conversion factors [mass units versus “système international” (S.I.)]. In clinical research, surrogate end-points are often used as biomarkers. Under those circumstances, you must show their validity or refer to a study that has already shown that are valid.

In cases of clinical trials, the Methods section should include the study design, the patient selection mode, interventions, type of outcomes.

Statistics are important in assuring the quality of the research project. Hence, you should consult a biostatistician at the time of devising the research protocol and not after having performed the experiments or the clinical trial.

The components of the section on statistics should include:

• The way the data will be reported (mean, median, centiles for continuous data);
• Details on participant assignments to the different groups (random allocation, consecutive entry);
• Statistical comparison tools (parametric or non parametric statistics, paired or unpaired t-tests for normally distributed data and so on);
• The statistical power calculation when determining the sample size to obtain valid and significant comparisons together with the a level;
• The statistical software package used in the analysis.

Results section

The main purpose of the results section is to report the data that were collected and their relationship. It should also provide information on the modifications that have taken place because of unforeseen events leading to a modification of the initial protocol (loss of participants, reagent substitution, loss of data).

• Report results as tables and figures whenever possible, avoid duplication in the text. The text should summarize the findings;
• Report the data with the appropriate descriptive statistics;
• Report any unanticipated events that could affect the results;
• Report a complete account of observations and explanations for missing data (patient lost).

The discussion should set your research in context, reinforce its importance and show how your results have contributed to the further understanding of the problem posed. This should appear in the concluding remarks. The following organization could be helpful.

• Briefly summarize the main results of your study in one or two paragraphs, and how they support your working hypothesis;
• Provide an interpretation of your results and show how they logically fit in an overall scheme (biological or clinical);
• Describe how your results compare with those of other investigators, explain the differences observed;
• Discuss how your results may lead to a new hypothesis and further experimentation, or how they could enhance the diagnostic procedures.
• Provide the limitations of your study and steps taken to reduce them. This could be placed in the concluding remarks.

Acknowledgements

The acknowledgements are important as they identify and thank the contributors to the study, who do not meet the criteria as co-authors. They also include the recognition of the granting agency. In this case the grant award number and source is usually included.

Declaration of competing interests

Competing interests arise when the author has more than one role that may lead to a situation where there is a conflict of interest. This is observed when the investigator has a simultaneous industrial consulting and academic position. In that case the results may not be agreeable to the industrial sponsor, who may impose a veto on publication or strongly suggest modifications to the conclusions. The investigator must clear this issue before starting the contracted research. In addition, the investigator may own shares or stock in the company whose product forms the basis of the study. Such conflicts of interest must be declared so that they are apparent to the readers.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Thomas A Lang, for his advice in the preparation of this manuscript.

When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.

• PLOS Biology
• PLOS Climate
• PLOS Complex Systems
• PLOS Computational Biology
• PLOS Digital Health
• PLOS Genetics
• PLOS Global Public Health
• PLOS Medicine
• PLOS Mental Health
• PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
• PLOS Pathogens
• PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
• PLOS Collections

Welcome to the PLOS Writing Center

Your source for scientific writing & publishing essentials.

A collection of free, practical guides and hands-on resources for authors looking to improve their scientific publishing skillset.

ARTICLE-WRITING ESSENTIALS

Your title is the first thing anyone who reads your article is going to see, and for many it will be where they stop reading. Learn how to write a title that helps readers find your article, draws your audience in and sets the stage for your research!

The abstract is your chance to let your readers know what they can expect from your article. Learn how to write a clear, and concise abstract that will keep your audience reading.

A clear methods section impacts editorial evaluation and readers’ understanding, and is also the backbone of transparency and replicability. Learn what to include in your methods section, and how much detail is appropriate.

In many fields, a statistical analysis forms the heart of both the methods and results sections of a manuscript. Learn how to report statistical analyses, and what other context is important for publication success and future reproducibility.

The discussion section contains the results and outcomes of a study. An effective discussion informs readers what can be learned from your experiment and provides context for the results.

Ensuring your manuscript is well-written makes it easier for editors, reviewers and readers to understand your work. Avoiding language errors can help accelerate review and minimize delays in the publication of your research.

The PLOS Writing Toolbox

Delivered to your inbox every two weeks, the Writing Toolbox features practical advice and tools you can use to prepare a research manuscript for submission success and build your scientific writing skillset. 

Discover how to navigate the peer review and publishing process, beyond writing your article.

The path to publication can be unsettling when you’re unsure what’s happening with your paper. Learn about staple journal workflows to see the detailed steps required for ensuring a rigorous and ethical publication.

Reputable journals screen for ethics at submission—and inability to pass ethics checks is one of the most common reasons for rejection. Unfortunately, once a study has begun, it’s often too late to secure the requisite ethical reviews and clearances. Learn how to prepare for publication success by ensuring your study meets all ethical requirements before work begins.

From preregistration, to preprints, to publication—learn how and when to share your study.

How you store your data matters. Even after you publish your article, your data needs to be accessible and useable for the long term so that other researchers can continue building on your work. Good data management practices make your data discoverable and easy to use, promote a strong foundation for reproducibility and increase your likelihood of citations.

You’ve just spent months completing your study, writing up the results and submitting to your top-choice journal. Now the feedback is in and it’s time to revise. Set out a clear plan for your response to keep yourself on-track and ensure edits don’t fall through the cracks.

There’s a lot to consider when deciding where to submit your work. Learn how to choose a journal that will help your study reach its audience, while reflecting your values as a researcher.

Are you actively preparing a submission for a PLOS journal? Select the relevant journal below for more detailed guidelines. 

How to Write an Article  

Share the lessons of the Writing Center in a live, interactive training.

Access tried-and-tested training modules, complete with slides and talking points, workshop activities, and more.

Writing and Publishing a Scientific Research Paper

• © 2017
• Subhash Chandra Parija 0 ,
• Vikram Kate 1

Department of Microbiology, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education & Research (JIPMER), Puducherry, India

You can also search for this editor in PubMed   Google Scholar

Department of Surgery, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education & Research (JIPMER), Puducherry, India

• The book covers all aspects of scientific writing from submission to publishing in detail
• Written and edited by world leaders in the field
• Chapters are easy to understand with essential contents for writing quality scientific research paper and easy to follow algorithms and key points in each chapter
• Chapters highlight the importance of each section of the scientific article
• A comprehensive book which will focus on how to deal with rejected manuscripts, issues of plagiarism and ethical principles of scientific publications

107k Accesses

12 Citations

10 Altmetric

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

Access this book

• 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
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Other ways to access

Licence this eBook for your library

Institutional subscriptions

Table of contents (18 chapters)

Front matter, writing a scientific research paper, why write a scientific research paper.

• Subhash Chandra Parija, Vikram Kate

Components and Structure of a Manuscript

• Sitanshu Sekhar Kar, Rakhee Kar
• S. Shyama Prem

Abstract and Keywords

• Vikram Kate, S. Suresh Kumar, Mohsina Subair

Introduction

• Tamilarasu Kadhiravan, Molly Mary Thabah
• B. Vishnu Bhat, S. Kingsley Manoj Kumar, G. Krishna Rao
• R. Ramesh, N. Ananthakrishnan

Discussion and Conclusion

• Zubair H. Aghai, David Carola
• Anup Mohta, Medha Mohta

Figures, Tables and Supporting Material

• Dinker Pai, Soon Kyit Chua, Suneet Sood

Publishing a Scientific Research Paper

Choosing a journal for paper submission and methods of submission.

• Vikram Kate, Madhuri Parija Halder, Subhash Chandra Parija

Revision of an Article and How to Deal with the Rejected Manuscript

• Vikram Kate, Raja Kalayarasan

Authorship and Contributorship

• Akash Shukla, Avinash Supe

Types of Manuscripts

• Rajive Mathew Jose, Kiruthika Sivasubramanian

What Does a Reviewer Look into a Manuscript

• Devinder Mohan Thappa, Malathi Munisamy

Open Access for Publication – Can It Be Chosen?

• Savio George Barreto

Publishing Misconduct Including Plagiarism and Permissions

• C. Adithan, A. Surendiran
• Components of Scientific research paper
• Choosing a journal for paper submission
• Dealing with rejected manuscript
• Authorship and contributorship
• Reviewer’s perspective of the manuscript
• Plagiarism and permissions

About this book

This book covers all essential aspects of writing scientific research articles, presenting eighteen carefully selected titles that offer essential, “must-know” content on how to write high-quality articles. The book also addresses other, rarely discussed areas of scientific writing including dealing with rejected manuscripts, the reviewer’s perspective as to what they expect in a scientific article, plagiarism, copyright issues, and ethical standards in publishing scientific papers. Simplicity is the book’s hallmark, and it aims to provide an accessible, comprehensive and essential resource for those seeking guidance on how to publish their research work.

The importance of publishing research work cannot be overemphasized. However, a major limitation in publishing work in a scientific journal is the lack of information on or experience with scientific writing and publishing. Young faculty and trainees who are starting their research career are in need of a comprehensive guidethat provides all essential components of scientific writing and aids them in getting their research work published.

Editors and Affiliations

Department of microbiology, jawaharlal institute of postgraduate medical education & research (jipmer), puducherry, india.

Subhash Chandra Parija

Department of Surgery, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education & Research (JIPMER), Puducherry, India

Vikram Kate

About the editors

Subhash Chandra Parija is the Director of the Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education & Research (JIPMER), Pondicherry, India, and has nearly three and half decades of teaching and research experience in Medical Microbiology. Prof. Parija is a Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) expert, and has been consulted to draft guidelines on food safety for parasites. Prof. Parija was on the Board of MD Examination at Colombo University, Sri Lanka, Sultan Quaboos University, Oman, University of Malaya, Malaysia. He was conferred a D.Sc. for his contributions in the field of Medical Parasitology by Madras University. The author of ten books including the “Text Book of Medical Parasitology,” he has published more than 300 papers in both national and international journals of repute.

Prof. Parija has been honored with more than 25 awards including the Medical Council of India’s Dr. BC Roy National Award and the National Academy of MedicalSciences’ Dr. PN Chuttani Oration Award. Prof. Parija founded the Indian Academy of Tropical Parasitology (IATP), the only professional organization of Medical Parasitologists in India, and initiated the journal Tropical Parasitology.

Vikram Kate  is currently the Professor and Head, Department of the Surgery and Senior Consultant General and Gastrointestinal Surgeon at Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education & Research (JIPMER), Puducherry. He has contributed more than 25 chapters in reputed surgical gastroenterology and surgery textbooks, and has more than 140 papers to his credit. He is a Past President of the Indian Association of Surgical Gastroenterology. He was awarded the Membership Diploma of the Faculty of Surgical Trainers by the Royal College of Surgeons, Edinburgh. Further, he currently serves as the Editor-in-Chief of The International Journal of Advanced Medical and Health Research , the official journal of JIPMER.

Professor Kate is Examiner for the M.S./M.Ch./DNB and Ph.D. program for Surgery, Surgical Gastroenterology and Intercollegiate Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons, Edinburgh. He is a Fellow of Royal College of Surgeons of England, Edinburgh and Glasgow (FRCS, FRCS Ed., FRCS Glasg.), and of the American College of Surgeons (FACS) and the American College of Gastroenterology (FACG). He has been honored with many awards, including the Dr. Mathias Oration (2010), the Prof. N. Rangabashyam Oration (2015), by the Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry Chapter of the Association of Surgeons of India and the Silver Jubilee MASICON Oration (2016) by the Nagpur Branch of the Association of Surgeons of India. 

Bibliographic Information

Book Title : Writing and Publishing a Scientific Research Paper

Editors : Subhash Chandra Parija, Vikram Kate

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4720-6

Publisher : Springer Singapore

eBook Packages : Medicine , Medicine (R0)

Copyright Information : Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Hardcover ISBN : 978-981-10-4719-0 Published: 09 August 2017

Softcover ISBN : 978-981-13-5211-9 Published: 13 December 2018

eBook ISBN : 978-981-10-4720-6 Published: 28 July 2017

Edition Number : 1

Number of Pages : XVII, 195

Number of Illustrations : 12 b/w illustrations, 39 illustrations in colour

Topics : Medicine/Public Health, general

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

A Nature Research Service

Scientific Writing and Publishing

For students and researchers in the natural sciences who are new to scientific writing or publishing or who wish to refresh their skills

Subscriptions available to institutions, departments and labs

Key features

3 on-demand courses  with certificates

36 Editors  Scientific writing and publishing experts, including Nature Portfolio Editors

21   hours  of learning

10-minute lessons

English language captions and transcripts

Skills gained

Develop writing skills and confidence writing for journals

Understand editorial processes and what editors look for

Learn best practices for submitting a paper and peer review

What you will learn in the three courses

Writing a research paper: 2nd edition.

Learn the detailed processes of writing a research paper

Publishing a Research Paper

Learn about the publication process and the things you need to consider

Writing and Publishing a Review Paper

Prepare yourself to write and publish a great review paper

Delivered by Nature Portfolio journal Editors

The courses are delivered by 30  Editors from over 20 Nature Portfolio journals  - giving researchers an unparalleled insight into the publishing and manuscript selection process.

“It was excellent to hear from the editors, personally, about what they are looking for.” 

Principal Investigator, Canada

Dip in and out design

Researchers can work at their own pace through the three courses - whether that is working through the courses in order or dipping in and out of modules. There are three courses, and content is easy to find. Each course has its own certificate of completion. The lessons are bite-sized (around 10 mins) and easy to fit around a busy research schedule.

“The shortness of the videos allows me to fit them in between work and research. This format also meant that I could take in the information bit by bit...” 

Post-doctoral student, United States

Individual researcher?

Recommend us.

Recommend the course to a lab, department, or institution.

FREE SAMPLE

Register for free to access a sample of the online course. 

Subscriptions

Laboratory subscription.

• Up to 15 researchers
• 12 months’ access
• Usage reports showing researcher uptake
• Discounts for multi-year

Price: Request a quote

Departmental subscription

• Up to 50 researchers
• Promotional resources
• Discounts for multi-year  

Institutional subscription

• Institution-wide access
• Launch presentation

Subscribers worldwide

Institutions are subscribing to our 'Scientific Writing and Publishing' courses to support their researchers in getting published. 

Discover related courses

Focus on peer review online course.

Explore the role of a peer reviewer and the foundations of a good peer review

Live, editor-led workshops in scientific writing and publishing

One- and two-day workshops, available to institutions worldwide

Image Credits

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Research Paper

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

The Research Paper

There will come a time in most students' careers when they are assigned a research paper. Such an assignment often creates a great deal of unneeded anxiety in the student, which may result in procrastination and a feeling of confusion and inadequacy. This anxiety frequently stems from the fact that many students are unfamiliar and inexperienced with this genre of writing. Never fear—inexperience and unfamiliarity are situations you can change through practice! Writing a research paper is an essential aspect of academics and should not be avoided on account of one's anxiety. In fact, the process of writing a research paper can be one of the more rewarding experiences one may encounter in academics. What is more, many students will continue to do research throughout their careers, which is one of the reasons this topic is so important.

Becoming an experienced researcher and writer in any field or discipline takes a great deal of practice. There are few individuals for whom this process comes naturally. Remember, even the most seasoned academic veterans have had to learn how to write a research paper at some point in their career. Therefore, with diligence, organization, practice, a willingness to learn (and to make mistakes!), and, perhaps most important of all, patience, students will find that they can achieve great things through their research and writing.

The pages in this section cover the following topic areas related to the process of writing a research paper:

• Genre - This section will provide an overview for understanding the difference between an analytical and argumentative research paper.
• Choosing a Topic - This section will guide the student through the process of choosing topics, whether the topic be one that is assigned or one that the student chooses themselves.
• Identifying an Audience - This section will help the student understand the often times confusing topic of audience by offering some basic guidelines for the process.
• Where Do I Begin - This section concludes the handout by offering several links to resources at Purdue, and also provides an overview of the final stages of writing a research paper.

• Create account

Forgot your password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Do not have an account ? Create new account

Already have a account ? Log in

We recommend the latest version of Chrome and Firefox for best view

• How it works
• Success Stories
• Testimonials
• Find an expert
• For Small Businesses
• Biotechnology
• Medical Devices
• Pharmaceuticals
• Medical Research
• Scientific Research
• Food & Beverage
• Scientific Writing
• Clinical Trials
• Microbiology
• Data Science & Analytics
• Scientific Consulting
• Statistical Analysis
• Food Science & Technology
• Medical Writing
• Clinical Research Consulting
• Clinical Evaluation Report
• EU MDR Consulting
• Secondary Research
• Literature Search
• Scientific Editing
• My Dashboard

Top Freelance Scientific Writers for Hire

Work with top-rated freelance scientific writers to develop high-quality, authoritative content. get help with research papers, grant proposals, blog articles, and more..

• Choose from hundreds of freelance scientific writers specialized in medical writing, science writing, technical writing, academic writing, grant writing, and more.
• Get a subject matter expert to help you write a research paper and prepare it for publishing in a journal of your choice.
• Consult a specialist for help to write literature reviews, conference proceedings, or how-to manuals.
• Get quick help with translation and content writing from language experts.
• The scope of the service can be fully customized and tailored to your specific requirements.

Flexible, easy payments. 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed. Confidentiality assured.

Pay per project

Pay a fixed rate per project. Set up milestones to pay against for complex projects. Increase the budget and scope at any time.

Pay by the hour

Not sure how long your project will take? Pay an hourly rate, with the flexibility to increase the number of hours as you go along.

Pay when you're satisfied

Your money is housed safely on Kolabtree. Release the funds only when you're completely satisfied with the freelancer’s work.

Safe and secure

Our T&C include a default confidentiality clause. However, you can easily upload and sign custom agreements with freelancers.

• 01 Start your project Describe your project, and select the service you need.
• 02 Choose an expert You will receive proposals from experts. Choose an expert based on expertise, price, and other criteria.
• 03 Collaborate Sign NDAs, set goals, and work closely with your chosen expert to get your desired output.
• Job done! Verify the project is complete to your satisfaction and release the payment to the expert.

Cannabis genetic categorization

Writing & editing.

A cannabis researcher hired a plant diversity expert for writing a report on the categorization of the cannabis plant.

Write a ‘How to’ guide

Writing & editing education.

An online technology publication hired a data scientist & writer to develop a 'how-to' guide on data analysis.

Prepare a paper for journal publication

A venture capitalist hired a US-based physicist for help editing a paper and selecting the right journal for publication.

• Technical & Scientic Writing
• Scientific Proofreading
• Medical Content Writing
• Grant Writing
• Systematic Literature Review
• Healthcare Communications
• Manuscript Writing
• Science Communication
• Visual Communication
• Journal Writing
• Medical Copywriting

We will be in touch with you via email/call in the next 8 hours.

Frequently Asked Questions

[email protected]

• Data Scientists & Analytics
• Statistical Review
• Food Science
• Clinical Evaluation Report Writing
• Medical Device Consulting
• Scientific Proofreading & Editing
• Biotechnology and Bioengineering
• Clinical Study Reports
• Manuscript & Journal Article Writing
• Technical & Scientific Writing
• Biomedical Engineering
• Clinical Trial Protocol Writing
• Medical Affairs
• MDR Consulting
• Medical Sciences

Cactus Communications Limited, 15-19 Bloomsbury Way, Holborn, London WC1A 2TH, United Kingdom

© 2024 Cactus Communications Limited, UK. All Rights Reserved

How to Write a Research Paper 

• Smodin Editorial Team
• Updated: May 17, 2024

Most students hate writing research papers. The process can often feel long, tedious, and sometimes outright boring. Nevertheless, these assignments are vital to a student’s academic journey. Want to learn how to write a research paper that captures the depth of the subject and maintains the reader’s interest? If so, this guide is for you.

Today, we’ll show you how to assemble a well-organized research paper to help you make the grade. You can transform any topic into a compelling research paper with a thoughtful approach to your research and a persuasive argument.

In this guide, we’ll provide seven simple but practical tips to help demystify the process and guide you on your way. We’ll also explain how AI tools can expedite the research and writing process so you can focus on critical thinking.

By the end of this article, you’ll have a clear roadmap for tackling these essays. You will also learn how to tackle them quickly and efficiently. With time and dedication, you’ll soon master the art of research paper writing.

Ready to get started?

What Is a Research Paper?

A research paper is a comprehensive essay that gives a detailed analysis, interpretation, or argument based on your own independent research. In higher-level academic settings, it goes beyond a simple summarization and includes a deep inquiry into the topic or topics.

The term “research paper” is a broad term that can be applied to many different forms of academic writing. The goal is to combine your thoughts with the findings from peer-reviewed scholarly literature.

By the time your essay is done, you should have provided your reader with a new perspective or challenged existing findings. This demonstrates your mastery of the subject and contributes to ongoing scholarly debates.

7 Tips for Writing a Research Paper

Often, getting started is the most challenging part of a research paper. While the process can seem daunting, breaking it down into manageable steps can make it easier to manage. The following are seven tips for getting your ideas out of your head and onto the page.

1. Understand Your Assignment

It may sound simple, but the first step in writing a successful research paper is to read the assignment. Sit down, take a few moments of your time, and go through the instructions so you fully understand your assignment.

Misinterpreting the assignment can not only lead to a significant waste of time but also affect your grade. No matter how patient your teacher or professor may be, ignoring basic instructions is often inexcusable.

If you read the instructions and are still confused, ask for clarification before you start writing. If that’s impossible, you can use tools like Smodin’s AI chat to help. Smodin can help highlight critical requirements that you may overlook.

This initial investment ensures that all your future efforts will be focused and efficient. Remember, thinking is just as important as actually writing the essay, and it can also pave the wave for a smoother writing process.

2. Gather Research Materials

Now comes the fun part: doing the research. As you gather research materials, always use credible sources, such as academic journals or peer-reviewed papers. Only use search engines that filter for accredited sources and academic databases so you can ensure your information is reliable.

To optimize your time, you must learn to master the art of skimming. If a source seems relevant and valuable, save it and review it later. The last thing you want to do is waste time on material that won’t make it into the final paper.

To speed up the process even more, consider using Smodin’s AI summarizer . This tool can help summarize large texts, highlighting key information relevant to your topic. By systematically gathering and filing research materials early in the writing process, you build a strong foundation for your thesis.

3. Write Your Thesis

Creating a solid thesis statement is the most important thing you can do to bring structure and focus to your research paper. Your thesis should express the main point of your argument in one or two simple sentences. Remember, when you create your thesis, you’re setting the tone and direction for the entire paper.

Of course, you can’t just pull a winning thesis out of thin air. Start by brainstorming potential thesis ideas based on your preliminary research. And don’t overthink things; sometimes, the most straightforward ideas are often the best.

You want a thesis that is specific enough to be manageable within the scope of your paper but broad enough to allow for a unique discussion. Your thesis should challenge existing expectations and provide the reader with fresh insight into the topic. Use your thesis to hook the reader in the opening paragraph and keep them engaged until the very last word.

4. Write Your Outline

An outline is an often overlooked but essential tool for organizing your thoughts and structuring your paper. Many students skip the outline because it feels like doing double work, but a strong outline will save you work in the long run.

Here’s how to effectively structure your outline.

• Introduction: List your thesis statement and outline the main questions your essay will answer.
• Literature Review: Outline the key literature you plan to discuss and explain how it will relate to your thesis.
• Methodology: Explain the research methods you will use to gather and analyze the information.
• Discussion: Plan how you will interpret the results and their implications for your thesis.
• Conclusion: Summarize the content above to elucidate your thesis fully.

To further streamline this process, consider using Smodin’s Research Writer. This tool offers a feature that allows you to generate and tweak an outline to your liking based on the initial input you provide. You can adjust this outline to fit your research findings better and ensure that your paper remains well-organized and focused.

5. Write a Rough Draft

Once your outline is in place, you can begin the writing process. Remember, when you write a rough draft, it isn’t meant to be perfect. Instead, use it as a working document where you can experiment with and rearrange your arguments and evidence.

Don’t worry too much about grammar, style, or syntax as you write your rough draft. Focus on getting your ideas down on paper and flush out your thesis arguments. You can always refine and rearrange the content the next time around.

Follow the basic structure of your outline but with the freedom to explore different ways of expressing your thoughts. Smodin’s Essay Writer offers a powerful solution for those struggling with starting or structuring their drafts.

After you approve the outline, Smodin can generate an essay based on your initial inputs. This feature can help you quickly create a comprehensive draft, which you can then review and refine. You can even use the power of AI to create multiple rough drafts from which to choose.

6. Add or Subtract Supporting Evidence

Once you have a rough draft, but before you start the final revision, it’s time to do a little cleanup. In this phase, you need to review all your supporting evidence. You want to ensure that there is nothing redundant and that you haven’t overlooked any crucial details.

Many students struggle to make the required word count for an essay and resort to padding their writing with redundant statements. Instead of adding unnecessary content, focus on expanding your analysis to provide deeper insights.

A good essay, regardless of the topic or format, needs to be streamlined. It should convey clear, convincing, relevant information supporting your thesis. If you find some information doesn’t do that, consider tweaking your sources.

Include a variety of sources, including studies, data, and quotes from scholars or other experts. Remember, you’re not just strengthening your argument but demonstrating the depth of your research.

If you want comprehensive feedback on your essay without going to a writing center or pestering your professor, use Smodin. The AI Chat can look at your draft and offer suggestions for improvement.

7. Revise, Cite, and Submit

The final stages of crafting a research paper involve revision, citation, and final review. You must ensure your paper is polished, professionally presented, and plagiarism-free. Of course, integrating Smodin’s AI tools can significantly streamline this process and enhance the quality of your final submission.

Start by using Smodin’s Rewriter tool. This AI-powered feature can help rephrase and refine your draft to improve overall readability. If a specific section of your essay just “doesn’t sound right,” the AI can suggest alternative sentence structures and word choices.

Proper citation is a must for all academic papers. Thankfully, thanks to Smodin’s Research Paper app, this once tedious process is easier than ever. The AI ensures all sources are accurately cited according to the required style guide (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.).

Plagiarism Checker:

All students need to realize that accidental plagiarism can happen. That’s why using a Plagiarism Checker to scan your essay before you submit it is always useful. Smodin’s Plagiarism Checker can highlight areas of concern so you can adjust accordingly.

Final Submission

After revising, rephrasing, and ensuring all citations are in order, use Smodin’s AI Content Detector to give your paper one last review. This tool can help you analyze your paper’s overall quality and readability so you can make any final tweaks or improvements.

Mastering Research Papers

Mastering the art of the research paper cannot be overstated, whether you’re in high school, college, or postgraduate studies. You can confidently prepare your research paper for submission by leveraging the AI tools listed above.

Research papers help refine your abilities to think critically and write persuasively. The skills you develop here will serve you well beyond the walls of the classroom. Communicating complex ideas clearly and effectively is one of the most powerful tools you can possess.

With the advancements of AI tools like Smodin , writing a research paper has become more accessible than ever before. These technologies streamline the process of organizing, writing, and revising your work. Write with confidence, knowing your best work is yet to come!

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
• CAREER FEATURE
• 08 May 2024

Illuminating ‘the ugly side of science’: fresh incentives for reporting negative results

• Rachel Brazil 0

Rachel Brazil is a freelance journalist in London, UK.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

The editor-in-chief of the Journal of Trial & Error , Sarahanne Field wants to publish the messy, null and negative results sitting in researchers’ file drawers. Credit: Sander Martens

Editor-in-chief Sarahanne Field describes herself and her team at the Journal of Trial & Error as wanting to highlight the “ugly side of science — the parts of the process that have gone wrong”.

She clarifies that the editorial board of the journal, which launched in 2020 , isn’t interested in papers in which “you did a shitty study and you found nothing. We’re interested in stuff that was done methodologically soundly, but still yielded a result that was unexpected.” These types of result — which do not prove a hypothesis or could yield unexplained outcomes — often simply go unpublished, explains Field, who is also an open-science researcher at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands. Along with Stefan Gaillard, one of the journal’s founders, she hopes to change that.

Calls for researchers to publish failed studies are not new. The ‘file-drawer problem’ — the stacks of unpublished, negative results that most researchers accumulate — was first described in 1979 by psychologist Robert Rosenthal . He argued that this leads to publication bias in the scientific record: the gap of missing unsuccessful results leads to overemphasis on the positive results that do get published.

Careers Collection: Publishing

Over the past 30 years, the proportion of negative results being published has decreased further. A 2012 study showed that, from 1990 to 2007, there was a 22% increase in positive conclusions in papers; by 2007, 85% of papers published had positive results 1 . “People fail to report [negative] results, because they know they won’t get published — and when people do attempt to publish them, they get rejected,” says Field. A 2022 survey of researchers in France in chemistry, physics, engineering and environmental sciences showed that, although 81% had produced relevant negative results and 75% were willing to publish them, only 12.5% had the opportunity to do so 2 .

One factor that is leading some researchers to revisit the problem is the growing use of predictive modelling using machine-learning tools in many fields. These tools are trained on large data sets that are often derived from published work, and scientists have found that the absence of negative data in the literature is hampering the process. Without a concerted effort to publish more negative results that artificial intelligence (AI) can be trained on, the promise of the technology could be stifled.

“Machine learning is changing how we think about data,” says chemist Keisuke Takahashi at Hokkaido University in Japan, who has brought the issue to the attention of the catalysis-research community . Scientists in the field have typically relied on a mixture of trial and error and serendipity in their experiments, but there is hope that AI could provide a new route for catalyst discovery. Takahashi and his colleagues mined data from 1,866 previous studies and patents to train a machine-learning model to predict the best catalyst for the reaction between methane and oxygen to form ethane and ethylene, both of which are important chemicals used in industry 3 . But, he says, “over the years, people have only collected the good data — if they fail, they don’t report it”. This led to a skewed model that, in some cases, enhanced the predicted performance of a material, rather than realistically assessing its properties.

Synthetic organic chemist Felix Strieth-Kalthoff found that published data were too heavily biased toward positive results to effectively train an AI model to optimize chemical reaction yields. Credit: Cindy Huang

Alongside the flawed training of AI models, the huge gap of negative results in the scientific record continues to be a problem across all disciplines. In areas such as psychology and medicine, publication bias is one factor exacerbating the ongoing reproducibility crisis — in which many published studies are impossible to replicate. Without sharing negative studies and data, researchers could be doomed to repeat work that led nowhere. Many scientists are calling for changes in academic culture and practice — be it the creation of repositories that include positive and negative data, new publication formats or conferences aimed at discussing failure. The solutions are varied, but the message is the same: “To convey an accurate picture of the scientific process, then at least one of the components should be communicating all the results, [including] some negative results,” says Gaillard, “and even where you don’t end up with results, where it just goes wrong.”

Science’s messy side

Synthetic organic chemist Felix Strieth-Kalthoff, who is now setting up his own laboratory at the University of Wuppertal, Germany, has encountered positive-result bias when using data-driven approaches to optimize the yields of certain medicinal-chemistry reactions. His PhD work with chemist Frank Glorius at the University of Münster, Germany, involved creating models that could predict which reactants and conditions would maximize yields. Initially, he relied on data sets that he had generated from high-throughput experiments in the lab, which included results from both high- and low-yield reactions, to train his AI model. “Our next logical step was to do that based on the literature,” says Strieth-Kalthoff. This would allow him to curate a much larger data set to be used for training.

But when he incorporated real data from the reactions database Reaxys into the training process, he says, “[it] turned out they don’t really work at all”. Strieth-Kalthoff concluded the errors were due the lack of low-yield reactions 4 ; “All of the data that we see in the literature have average yields of 60–80%.” Without learning from the messy ‘failed’ experiments with low yields that were present in the initial real-life data, the AI could not model realistic reaction outcomes.

Although AI has the potential to spot relationships in complex data that a researcher might not see, encountering negative results can give experimentalists a gut feeling, says molecular modeller Berend Smit at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne. The usual failures that every chemist experiences at the bench give them a ‘chemical intuition’ that AI models trained only on successful data lack.

Smit and his team attempted to embed something similar to this human intuition into a model tasked with designing a metal-organic framework (MOF) with the largest known surface area for this type of material. A large surface area allows these porous materials to be used as reaction supports or molecular storage reservoirs. “If the binding [between components] is too strong, it becomes amorphous; if the binding is too weak, it becomes unstable, so you need to find the sweet spot,” Smit says. He showed that training the machine-learning model on both successful and unsuccessful reaction conditions created better predictions and ultimately led to one that successfully optimized the MOF 5 . “When we saw the results, we thought, ‘Wow, this is the chemical intuition we’re talking about!’” he says.

According to Strieth-Kalthoff, AI models are currently limited because “the data that are out there just do not reflect all of our knowledge”. Some researchers have sought statistical solutions to fill the negative-data gap. Techniques include oversampling, which means supplementing data with several copies of existing negative data or creating artificial data points, for example by including reactions with a yield of zero. But, he says, these types of approach can introduce their own biases.

Computer scientist Ella Peltonen helped to organize the first International Workshop on Negative Results in Pervasive Computing in 2022 to give researchers an opportunity to discuss failed experiments. Credit: University of Oulu

Capturing more negative data is now a priority for Takahashi. “We definitely need some sort of infrastructure to share the data freely.” His group has created a website for sharing large amounts of experimental data for catalysis reactions . Other organizations are trying to collect and publish negative data — but Takahashi says that, so far, they lack coordination, so data formats aren’t standardized. In his field, Strieth-Kalthoff says, there are initiatives such as the Open Reaction Database , launched in 2021 to share organic-reaction data and enable training of machine-learning applications. But, he says, “right now, nobody’s using it, [because] there’s no incentive”.

Smit has argued for a modular open-science platform that would directly link to electronic lab notebooks to help to make different data types extractable and reusable . Through this process, publication of negative data in peer-reviewed journals could be skipped, but the information would still be available for researchers to use in AI training. Strieth-Kalthoff agrees with this strategy in theory, but thinks it’s a long way off in practice, because it would require analytical instruments to be coupled to a third-party source to automatically collect data — which instrument manufacturers might not agree to, he says.

Publishing the non-positive

In other disciplines, the emphasis is still on peer-reviewed journals that will publish negative results. Gaillard, a science-studies PhD student at Radboud University in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, co-founded the Journal of Trial & Error after attending talks on how science can be made more open. Gaillard says that, although everyone whom they approached liked the idea of the journal, nobody wanted to submit articles at first. He and the founding editorial team embarked on a campaign involving cold calls and publicity at open-science conferences. “Slowly, we started getting our first submissions, and now we just get people sending things in [unsolicited],” he says. Most years the journal publishes one issue of about 8–14 articles, and it is starting to publish more special issues. It focuses mainly on the life sciences and data-based social sciences.

In 2008, David Alcantara, then a chemistry PhD student at the University of Seville in Spain who was frustrated by the lack of platforms for sharing negative results, set up The All Results journals, which were aimed at disseminating results regardless of the outcome . Of the four disciplines included at launch, only the biology journal is still being published. “Attracting submissions has always posed a challenge,” says Alcantara, now president at the consultancy and training organization the Society for the Improvement of Science in Seville.

But Alcantara thinks there has been a shift in attitudes: “More established journals [are] becoming increasingly open to considering negative results for publication.” Gaillard agrees: “I’ve seen more and more journals, like PLoS ONE , for example, that explicitly mentioned that they also publish negative results.” ( Nature welcomes submissions of replication studies and those that include null results, as described in this 2020 editorial .)

Journals might be changing their publication preferences, but there are still significant disincentives that stop researchers from publishing their file-drawer studies. “The current academic system often prioritizes high-impact publications and ground-breaking discoveries for career advancement, grants and tenure,” says Alcantara, noting that negative results are perceived as contributing little to nothing to these endeavours. Plus, there is still a stigma associated with any kind of failure . “People are afraid that this will look negative on their CV,” says Gaillard. Smit describes reporting failed experiments as a no-win situation: “It’s more work for [researchers], and they don’t get anything in return in the short term.” And, jokes Smit, what’s worse is that they could be providing data for an AI tool to take over their role.

Ultimately, most researchers conclude that publishing their failed studies and negative data is just not worth the time and effort — and there’s evidence that they judge others’ negative research more harshly than positive outcomes. In a study published in August, 500 researchers from top economics departments around the world were randomized to two groups and asked to judge a hypothetical research paper. Half of the participants were told that the study had a null conclusion, and the other half were told the results were sizeably significant. The null results were perceived to be 25% less likely to be published, of lower quality and less important than were the statistically significant findings 6 .

Some researchers have had positive experiences sharing their unsuccessful findings. For example, in 2021, psychologist Wendy Ross at the London Metropolitan University published her negative results from testing a hypothesis about human problem-solving in the Journal of Trial & Error 7 , and says the paper was “the best one I have published to date”. She adds, “Understanding the reasons for null results can really test and expand our theoretical understanding.”

Fields forging solutions

The field of psychology has introduced one innovation that could change publication biases — registered reports (RRs). These peer-reviewed reports , first published in 2014, came about largely as a response to psychology’s replication crisis, which began in around 2011. RRs set out the methodology of a study before the results are known, to try to prevent selective reporting of positive results. Daniël Lakens, who studies science-reward structures at Eindhoven University of Technology in the Netherlands, says there is evidence that RRs increase the proportion of negative results in the psychology literature.

In a 2021 study, Lakens analysed the proportion of published RRs whose results eventually support the primary hypothesis. In a random sample of hypothesis-testing studies from the standard psychology literature, 96% of the results were positive. In RRs, this fell to only 44% 8 . Lakens says the study shows “that if you offer this as an option, many more null results enter the scientific literature, and that is a desirable thing”. At least 300 journals, including Nature , are now accepting RRs, and the format is spreading to journals in biology, medicine and some social-science fields.

Yet another approach has emerged from the field of pervasive computing, the study of how computer systems are integrated into physical surroundings and everyday life. About four years ago, members of the community started discussing reproducibility, says computer scientist Ella Peltonen at the University of Oulu in Finland. Peltonen says that researchers realized that, to avoid the repetition of mistakes, there was a need to discuss the practical problems with studies and failed results that don’t get published. So in 2022, Peltonen and her colleagues held the first virtual International Workshop on Negative Results in Pervasive Computing (PerFail) , in conjunction with the field’s annual conference, the International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications.

Peltonen explains that PerFail speakers first present their negative results and then have the same amount of time for discussion afterwards, during which participants tease out how failed studies can inform future work. “It also encourages the community to showcase that things require effort and trial and error, and there is value in that,” she adds. Now an annual event, the organizers invite students to attend so they can see that failure is a part of research and that “you are not a bad researcher because you fail”, says Peltonen.

In the long run, Alcantara thinks a continued effort to persuade scientists to share all their results needs to be coupled with policies at funding agencies and journals that reward full transparency. “Criteria for grants, promotions and tenure should recognize the value of comprehensive research dissemination, including failures and negative outcomes,” he says. Lakens thinks funders could be key to boosting the RR format, as well. Funders, he adds, should say, “We want the research that we’re funding to appear in the scientific literature, regardless of the significance of the finding.”

There are some positive signs of change about sharing negative data: “Early-career researchers and the next generation of scientists are particularly receptive to the idea,” says Alcantara. Gaillard is also optimistic, given the increased interest in his journal, including submissions for an upcoming special issue on mistakes in the medical domain. “It is slow, of course, but science is a bit slow.”

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01389-7

Fanelli, D. Scientometrics 90 , 891–904 (2012).

Article   Google Scholar  

Herbet, M.-E., Leonard, J., Santangelo, M. G. & Albaret, L. Learned Publishing 35 , 16–29 (2022).

Fujima, J., Tanaka, Y., Miyazato, I., Takahashi, L. & Takahashi, K. Reaction Chem. Eng. 5 , 903–911 (2020).

Strieth-Kalthoff, F. et al. Angew. Chem. Int. Edn 61 , e202204647 (2022).

Moosavi, S. M. et al. Nature Commun. 10 , 539 (2019).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Chopra, F., Haaland, I., Roth, C. & Stegmann, A. Econ. J. 134 , 193–219 (2024).

Ross, W. & Vallée-Tourangeau, F. J. Trial Error https://doi.org/10.36850/e4 (2021).

Scheel, A. M., Schijen, M. R. M. J. & Lakens, D. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci . https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459211007467 (2021).

Download references

Related Articles

• Scientific community

I’m worried I’ve been contacted by a predatory publisher — how do I find out?

Career Feature 15 MAY 24

How I fled bombed Aleppo to continue my career in science

Career Feature 08 MAY 24

Hunger on campus: why US PhD students are fighting over food

Career Feature 03 MAY 24

Mount Etna’s spectacular smoke rings and more — April’s best science images

News 03 MAY 24

Plagiarism in peer-review reports could be the ‘tip of the iceberg’

Nature Index 01 MAY 24

Algorithm ranks peer reviewers by reputation — but critics warn of bias

Nature Index 25 APR 24

Researchers want a ‘nutrition label’ for academic-paper facts

Nature Index 17 APR 24

Faculty Positions& Postdoctoral Research Fellow, School of Optical and Electronic Information, HUST

Job Opportunities: Leading talents, young talents, overseas outstanding young scholars, postdoctoral researchers.

Wuhan, Hubei, China

School of Optical and Electronic Information, Huazhong University of Science and Technology

Postdoc in CRISPR Meta-Analytics and AI for Therapeutic Target Discovery and Priotisation (OT Grant)

APPLICATION CLOSING DATE: 14/06/2024 Human Technopole (HT) is a new interdisciplinary life science research institute created and supported by the...

Human Technopole

Research Associate - Metabolism

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Postdoc Fellowships

Train with world-renowned cancer researchers at NIH? Consider joining the Center for Cancer Research (CCR) at the National Cancer Institute

Bethesda, Maryland

NIH National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Faculty Recruitment, Westlake University School of Medicine

Faculty positions are open at four distinct ranks: Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Full Professor, and Chair Professor.

Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

Westlake University

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

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