Writing a Scientific Article

Editor's Notes

• #14: SCImago Journal Rank (SJR indicator) is a measure of scientific influence of scholarly journals that accounts for both the number of citations received by a journal and the importance or prestige of the journals where such citations come from. The Eigenfactor Score calculation is based on the number of times articles from the journal published in the past five years have been cited in the JCR year, but it also considers which journals have contributed these citations so that highly cited journals will influence the network more than lesser cited journals.  References from one article in a journal to another article from the same journal are removed, so that Eigenfactor Scores are not influenced by journal self-citation.
• #23: How new are my results compared with those already published? Make sure to read all relevant and pertinent material.
• #27: Authors should give specific reasons why the research is important, for example, the research could affect a particular medical intervention, it could have a bearing on a specific policy discussion, or it could change a conventional theory or belief. 
• #28: Spend some time creating a list of journals and reviewing your options before deciding which journal to submit your manuscript to. Have several backups journals ready to submit to and always refer to the Guide for Authors.
• #29: Doing a thorough literature review will determine the best methodologies and practices for your own research.
• #30: It is very important for authors to present a persuasive and rational argument in their papers. You should be able to convince readers that your research is both sound and important through your writing.
• #31: All the problems in this category are easily fixable, either by asking a native English speaking friend or colleague to review the paper or by getting the paper professionally edited and formatted. Read the Guide for Authors throughout your preparation of the manuscript.
• #32: Journal’s decision-making policy: some journals follow a policy of rejecting any manuscript that will require major revisions, while some journals will complete another round of another peer review if they are unsure of the manuscript quality. The journal editor is looking for something specific at a particular time: Sometimes, journal editors may wish to publish a thematic issue of the journal or may be interested in a current hot topic, in which case they might tend to accept more papers focusing on that particular topic.
• #39: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3276043/ Guest authors are those who do not meet accepted authorship criteria but are listed because of their seniority, reputation or supposed influence. Gift authors are those who do not meet accepted authorship criteria but are listed as a personal favour or in return for payment. Ghost authors are those who meet authorship criteria but are not listed meet accepted authorship criteria but are listed as a personal favour or in return for payment.
• #44: http://www.icmje.org/conflicts-of-interest/
• #50: 1. Develop a central message of the manuscript Everything in the manuscript will be written to support this central message. 2. Define the materials and methods Briefly state the population in which you worked, the sampling method you employed, the materials you used, and most importantly, the methods you used to carry out the study 3. Summarize the question(s) and problem(s) What was known before you started the study? What answers were needed to address the problem(s)? List the key points pertaining to the question(s) and problem(s). What did you do to answer the question(s)? 4. Define the principal findings and results Your central message sentence probably encapsulates the most important findings. There may be others that you feel ought to be included. List these in note form. Don't worry about the order or about how many you put down. 5. Describe the conclusions and implications Make brief notes on each of the implications that arise from your study. What are the principal conclusions of your findings? What is new in your work and why does it matter? What are the limitations and the implications of your results? Are there any changes in practice, approaches or techniques that you would recommend? 6. Organize and group related ideas together List each key point separately. Key points can be arranged chronologically, by order of importance or by some other pattern. The organizing scheme should be clear and well structured. You can use a cluster map, an issue tree, numbering, or some other organizational structure. Identify the important details, describe the principal findings, and provide your analysis and conclusions that contribute to each key point.
• #53: The four main types of abstracts are descriptive, informative, structured and graphical. The one that is used should be as instructed in the Guide for Authors.
• #57: Measurement system to be Celsius and metric system
• #65: Do not rewrite the abstract. Statements with “investigated” or “studied” are not conclusions Do not introduce new arguments, evidence, new ideas, or information unrelated to the topic. Do not apologize for doing a poor job of presenting the material. Do not include evidence (quotations, statistics, etc.) that should be in the body of the paper.