The document provides guidance on writing scientific articles, including their typical structure and key components. It discusses the importance of planning the article by developing a central message and summarizing the key elements. Tips are provided on selecting an appropriate target journal based on factors like the article's significance, relevance and appeal. Common reasons for rejection like lack of novelty or poor writing are also reviewed.

1. How to write a
Scientific Article
Hythm Shibl – Managing Editor/KSU titles

2. Two sides to every brain…
I am the left
brain. I am a
scientist. A
mathematician. I
love the familiar,
the constant. I
categorise. I am
logical, linear,
analytical,
strategic,
practical, realistic
and always in
control. I know
exactly who I am.
I am the right
brain. I am
creativity. A free
spirit. I am
passion,
yearning for
change. I am
movement and
vivid colours. I
am boundless
imagination in
the form of art
and poetry. I
sense. I feel. I
am everything I
want to be.
Adapted from a Mercedes-Benz Advert
Reading and
understanding
Writing and
creativity

3. Be more creative…

4. What do authors want?
To be published as quickly as possible
To be recognized for their effort and hard
work
To network with other researchers who will
collaborate on more research
To contribute to science
Promotion and tenure

5. Why is reading so important?
Are the most appropriate research questions being asked?
• Are the most appropriate methods used to answer these questions?
• Are the results interpreted appropriately?
• Is the most relevant research being cited?
• Keeping up with advances related to your research
• Staying broadly educated about the field
• Transitioning into a new research area
Helps you find suitable journals to target
• Reviewing papers for conferences/journals
• Giving colleagues feedback on their papers
The more you read, the better your writing style 

6. Effective reading strategies

7. Reading strategies: journal
articles
Read Title and Abstract first
• Self-assess knowledge of the topic
Read Results
• Go through the tables and figures
Read Discussion for
interpretation
Refer to Introduction and
Methods only when necessary

8. Reading strategies: books
Read the Table
of Contents
and Preface
• Self-assess
knowledge of
the topic
• Know what your
looking for
Skim through
the table and
figure captions
• Refer to the
tables and
figures
• Use the index to
find specific
details
Read through
results and
discussions
that are
interesting
• Read through the
appendices and
other
supplementary
material

9. Networking for collaboration
Who is your neighbour in this audience?
Be active at conferences
Make use of social media
• LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook etc…
Use academic social network tools
• mendeley.com, researchgate.net, academia.edu,
gaudeamusacademia.com etc…

10. Practical tips…
Find out what’s Hot
• http://info.scopus.com/topcited/
• http://top25.sciencedirect.com/
• http://www.scitopics.com/
• Scan papers in latest conference proceedings
• What interests you? What keeps you dreaming?
Find the subject trends
• Journals, authors, publications per year (Scopus)
• Search tips (including alerts)

11. …on finding…
Evaluate which journal is right for
your article
• Impact Factor
• Subject Specific Impact Factor
(http://tinyurl.com/scopusimpact)
• SCImago Journal & Country Ranking
(http://scimagojr.com/)
• Journal Analyzer
• h-Index of other authors
• Ask yourself “Where will my article have the greatest
impact?”
• If possible, submit to a “niche” or special interest journal

12. …a target journal
Find out more about the journals
• Who are the editors?
• Read the guide for authors
• Who tends to read these journals?
• Where are they from? Which articles
are frequently downloaded and cited?
• Read several issues of the journals that
you are considering
• Go to conferences

13. Journal metrics overview
Journal citation data and bibliometrics
can be used to measure the impact or
influence of articles, authors and journals
• Impact Factor
• h-index
• SCImago Journal Rank
• Usage
• Eigenfactor

14. What does having impact factor
mean?
Impact Factor (IF)
[the average annual number of citations per article
published]
 For example, the 2013 impact factor for a journal would be calculated
as follows:
◦ A = the number of times articles published in 2011 and 2012 were
cited in indexed journals during 2013
◦ B = the number of "citable items" (usually articles, reviews,
proceedings or notes; not editorials and letters-to-the-Editor)
published in 2011 and 2012
◦ 2013 impact factor = A/B
◦ e.g. 600 citations = 2
150 + 150 articles

15. What about the h-index?

16. Where you publish affects your
future citations…
"It is better to
publish one paper in
a quality journal than
multiple papers in
lesser journals. Try to
publish in journals
that have high impact
factors; chances are
your paper will have
high impact, too, if
accepted.”
 Bourne, P. E. (2005). Ten Simple Rules for Getting
Published. PLoS Computational Biology 1(5): e57.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010057
"Where you publish is
the primary
determinant of how
many citations your
work will receive in
the future.”
 Peng, T.-Q. & J.J.H. Zhu (2012). Where you publish
matters most: A multilevel analysis of factors affecting
citations of internet studies. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(9):
1789-1803 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.22649

17. Which factor is the most
important?
Aims and
Scope
Publishing
frequency
Impact
factor
Target
audience
Open
access?
Prestige
Cost
Publication
type

18. Open Access
Gold Open Access
◦ Immediate access the Version of
Record (VoR) of a publication via
the publishers platform in
exchange for payment of a Article
Publication Charge (APC); usually
free of many conventional
licensing and copyright restrictions
Green Open Access
◦ Access without payment to a
version of the publication (not
VoR) via a repository, often after
an embargo period

19. Predatory journals
Antarctica Journal of Mathematics?!
Fake editorial boards (are they credible scientists?)
Very quick/consistent period from submission to acceptance
(no time for revision!)
No language editing/poor English
Very low quality articles
Charge an exorbitant APC
Some falsely claim that they have an IF

20. When to choose a target journal?
Results
• The experiment is complete
• No new results are coming
Factors
• Evaluated all the relevant factors
• Honestly assessed the planned article and the
potential journals to target
Writing
• Have written the methods and results
• What is the message? Who will read it?
• How significant are the results?

21. Evaluating significance:
importance
Interest
•Specific or general audience?
Existing theory
•Supporting or contradicting?
Practicalities
•Substantially improve understanding?
•New technology or disease treatment?

22. Evaluating significance: novelty
Conceptual
advances
•Medium to
high IF
Incremental
advances
•Low to
medium IF
New findings

23. Evaluating significance: relevance
• Possible implications to other regions and
wider populations?
Relevant to a specific
area or population?
• First of their kind
• International significance
Journals with high IF will
consider specific findings

24. Evaluating significance: appeal
Will my research question appeal
to the general public?
• Optogenetics
• Epigenetics
• Stem cell research
• Higgs boson
• Global warming
• Clean tech

25. Reasons for rejection
Lack of originality, novelty, or significance
Mismatch with the journal
Flaws in study design
Poor Writing and Organization
Inadequate preparation of the manuscript
Other reasons

26. Lack of originality, novelty or
significance
Results that are not generalizable
Use of methods that have become obsolete because of new
technologies or techniques
Secondary analyses that extend or replicate published findings
without adding substantial knowledge
Studies that report already known knowledge but positions the
knowledge as novel by extending it to a new geography, population
or cultural setting
Results that are unoriginal, predictable or trivial
Results that have no clinical, theoretical or practical implications

27. Mismatch with the journal
Findings that are of interest to a very narrow or
specialized audience that the journal does not cater to
specifically
Manuscripts that lie outside the stated aims and
scope of the journal
Topics that are not of interest to the journal’s
readership
Manuscripts that do not follow the format specified by
the journal

28. Flaws in study design
Poorly formulated research question
Poor conceptualization of the approach to answering the research
question
Choice of a weak or unreliable method
Choice of an incorrect method or model that is not suitable for the
problem to be studied
Inappropriate statistical analysis
Unreliable or incomplete data
Inappropriate or suboptimal instrumentation
Small or inappropriately chosen sample

29. Poor Writing and Organization
Inadequate description of methods
Discussion that only repeats the results but does not interpret them
Insufficient explanation of the rationale for the study
Insufficient, incomplete, inaccurate or outdated literature review
Conclusions that do not appear to be supported by the study data
Failure to place the study in a broad context
Introduction that does not establish the background of the problem
studied

30. Inadequate preparation of the
manuscript
Failure to follow the journal’s Guide for Authors
Sentences that are not clear and concise
Title, abstract and/or cover letter that are not persuasive
Wordiness and excessive use of jargon
Large number of careless errors like poor grammar or spelling
mistakes
Poorly designed tables or figures

31. Other reasons…
Space constraints
Quality and experience of peer reviewers
Volume of submissions
Journal’s decision-making policy
The journal editor is looking for something specific at a
particular time
The journal receives more than one submission on the same
topic

32. Scientific misconduct
Academic integrity
•Honesty and responsibility in scholarship
•Results from an individual's own efforts
Examples of misconduct, fraud and dishonesty
•Duplicate submissions and publications
•Plagiarism
•Improper author contribution
•Data fabrication and falsification
•Figure manipulation
•Improper use of human and animal subjects
•Conflicts of interest
Editors think twice about accepting any future article if there is any evidence
of misconduct, fraud or dishonesty

33. Duplicate submissions and
publications
• Prohibited by international ethics and
standards
• Editors DO find out! (Trust us, we DO!)
• And they keep lists…
• Immediate rejection possibly arbitrarily
DO NOT submit your manuscript
to multiple journals at a time.

34. Plagiarism
• Derived from the Latin word plagiarius (“kidnapper”)…
• Appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes,
results and/or words without giving appropriate credit.
• Plagiarism is unethical because it is
Academic/Intellectual:
• Theft
• Fraud
• Concealment
Definition
“The most dangerous of all falsehoods is
a slightly distorted truth.”
G.C.Lichtenberg (1742-1799)
“Concealment is at the heart of
plagiarism”
Richard Posner

35. Plagiarism: the main types
Direct Plagiarism
• Word-for-word transcription
without attribution
Self Plagiarism
• Borrows generously from
the writer’s previous work
without citation
Mosaic Plagiarism
• Paraphrases from multiple
sources, made to fit
together and contains
almost no original work
Accidental
Plagiarism
• Neglects to cite sources, or
misquotes their sources or
unintentionally paraphrases
sources without attribution

36. Plagiarism: prevention
All major publishers participating in two
plagiarism detection schemes:
• Turnitin (aimed at universities)
• Ithenticate and crosscheck (aimed at publishers and
corporations)
Database
• Approximately 39 million peer reviewed articles which
have been donated by 80 thousand journals and/or 50+
publishers
When in doubt, cite….

37. Authorship: who’s who of the
article

38. Authorship: definition
The ICMJE recommends that an author
has:
• Substantially contributed to the conception or design of
the work; or the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of
data for the work; AND
• Drafted the work or revising it critically for important
intellectual content; AND
• Provided final approval of the version to be published;
AND
• Agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in
ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or
integrity of any part of the work are appropriately
investigated and resolved.
• Anybody else can be added to the acknowledgements
but only with their express permission

39. Author order and abuses
• First Author
• Conducts and/or supervises the data generation and analysis
and the proper presentation and interpretation of the results
• Puts paper together and submits the paper to journal
• Corresponding author
• The first author or a senior author from the institution
• Particularly when the first author is a PhD student or postdoc,
and may move to another institution soon
General principles
• Ghost Authors: leaving out authors who should be included
• Gift Authors: including authors who did not contribute
significantly but as a personal favour or in return for payment
• Guest Authors: including authors who did not contribute
significantly because of their seniority, reputation or supposed
influence
Abuses to be avoided

40. Data fabrication and falsification
• Intentional act of making up data or results and recording
or reporting them
Data fabrication
• Intentional act of manipulating
• Research materials
• Equipment or processes
• Changing or omitting/suppressing data or results
without scientific or statistical justification
• “misrepresentation of uncertainty” during statistical
analysis of the data
Falsification

41. Figure manipulation
Definition
• Either selectively altering or
reconstructing to show something
that did not exist originally for
whatever reason, intention or purpose
Specifics
• Enhancing, obscuring, moving,
removing or introducing something to
the original figure or photograph
Adjustments
• Must be fully disclosed in the legend
• Brightness, contrast, colour balance
and nonlinear adjustments
• Must not eliminate or obscure any of
the original information or data

42. Improper use of human and
animal subjects
Data integrity
• Comprehensive documentation
• Throughout the collection process
• Essential
• Quality assurance
• Prevention; before
• Standardization of protocol
• Quality control
• Documentation and correction; during and after
Consequences
from
improperly
collected data
• Inability to answer research questions accurately
• Inability to repeat and validate the study
• Distorted findings resulting in wasted resources
• Misleading other researchers to pursue fruitless
avenues of investigation
• Compromising decisions for public policy
• Causing harm to human participants and animal
subjects

43. Conflicts of interest
If the author(s) and/or their
institution
• Have financial, personal relations or any other
reason
• Which affects their ability to conduct the
experiment, collect and/or analyse the data
• Objectively and without bias or prejudice
• Both actual and/or perceived interests must be
disclosed that do and which might appear to
influence this ability

44. Writing science
“The purpose of writing
is to inflate weak
ideas, obscure pure
reasoning, and inhibit
clarity. With a little
practice, writing can be
an intimidating and
impenetrable fog!” Bill
Watterson

45. The science of writing
“Science is complicated and sometimes chaotic; scientific
writing should be clear and focused.”
- Jasenka Piljac Zegarac, Ph.D.

46. General writing: example
A good paragraph generally possesses
several key features that contribute to its
clarity and effectiveness in presenting
information. The first feature is a topic
sentence that provides the reader with a
general overview of the topic covered in the
ensuing paragraph. The body of the
paragraph should provide substantial
information with references and evidence
supporting the topic sentence. The final
sentence serves to wrap up the ideas and
prepare the reader for material to follow in
the next paragraph, also known as a
transition sentence. Upon reading the final
sentence, the reader should be able to name
the topic of the following paragraph.

47. Article structure
Title
Abstract
Keywords
Main text (IMRAD)
•Introduction
•Methods
•Results
•And
•Discussion
Conclusion
Acknowledgements
References
Supplementary Data

48. Essence of the article
The
central
message
Don’t be hasty
The whole article will be based upon and
supporting this message
Planning
is crucial
to
achieving
perfection
What are the three central points of the
research?
Summarise the article into a maximum of two
sentences (45 – 50 words)
Describe the work to a non-collaborative
colleague in one minute

49. Planning your article
1. Develop a
central
message of the
manuscript
2. Define the
materials and
methods
3. Summarize
the question(s)
and problem(s)
4. Define the
principal
findings and
results
5. Describe the
conclusions and
implications
6. Organize and
group related
ideas together
7. Identify the
references that
pertain to each
key point
www.sfedit.net

50. Writing structure

51. Title
• Series of keywords that function as a label
• Fewest possible words to specifically and descriptively
“sell” the contents of the paper
The title is a:
• Scientific and chemical names to be in full
• Express only one idea or subject
• Be concise
• 10 to 12 words is recommended
• No need for verbs or articles
• Avoid redundancy
• Write the title with the outline and refine often
Rules

52. Abstract
Assessment and identification
• Major objectives and conclusions
• Phrases with keywords from the methods section
• Major results from the discussion or results section
Single paragraph of essential information
• Hypothesis or method used in the first sentence
• Omit background information, literature review and detailed
description of methods
• Remove extra words, phrases and jargon
Meets the guidelines of the targeted journal
• Revise until it’s as short as possible and can stand alone
• Advertises the article and your research

53. Keywords
Will determine whether or
not the article is found!
• Too general (“drug delivery”, “mouse”, “disease”, etc.)
• Too narrow (so that nobody will ever search for it)
Avoid making them
• Look at the keywords of articles relevant to your
manuscript
• Search for these keywords and see whether they return
relevant papers
• Neither too many nor too few
An effective approach:

54. Introduction: the wood…
Organisation: General to the specific
• Concise background
• Clinical/scientific question
• Objective of the investigation
• What are the goals?
• Describe unknowns
• Population
• Methods, materials and measurements
• Primary hypothesis
• Secondary hypothesis
Foundations
• Why is this study significant?
• Hook the reader to the “story”
• Cite only relevant and pertinent literature
• Editor and reviewers may think you don’t have a clue where you are
writing about
• Directly related to the question and/or problem

55. Introduction: …through the trees
• State the hypothesis
• Variables investigated
• Concise summary of the methods used
• Define any abbreviations or specialized terms
• Avoid acronyms and jargon wherever possible
• Do not overuse expressions such as “novel”, “first time”, “first
ever”, “paradigm shift” etc
Framework
• Concise discussion of the results and other related studies
• Describe some, not all, of the major findings
• How do they contribute to the larger field of research?
• Principal conclusions
• Questions left unanswered
• New questions generated by the study
The Big Picture

56. Methodology: the how
Describe and Define
• Patients, animals, etc
• Institutional review board approval and informed consent
• Material and equipment
• Give as much detail as possible
• More details is better
• Describe the treatments
• Consult a statiscian
• Ensure that the statistical analysis of the data is appropriate
and is accurately described
• Give vendor names (and addresses) of equipment etc. used
• All chemicals must be identified
• Do not use proprietary, unidentifiable compounds without
description

57. Methodology: continued
How
was the
problem
studied?
• Identify the procedures
followed
• Illustrate and describe
procedures in detail
• Chronologically wherever
possible
• Compare with other
methods
• Cite literature reference

58. Results = new knowledge
Big picture
• Don’t repeat what has already been mentioned about the
experimental details in Methods
• Help the reader to understand what happened next in the “story”
of answering the research question
Present the data, don’t interpret it
• Use the past tense
• Be discriminatory
• Show what is important; take the mean value of the raw data
• Organise from most to least important throughout the section
• Summarise any statistical analysis
• Text should complement figures and tables not repeat it
• Write with accuracy, brevity and clarity

59. Tables and figures
Organisation
• Essential information that could not adequately be presented in
the text
• They should tell a “story”
• Be sufficiently complete to stand alone, without referring to the
text
• If both independent and dependent variables are numeric:- line
diagrams or scattergrams
• If dependent variable is numeric:- bar graphs
• Proportions:- bar graphs or pie charts
Try to avoid including long boring tables!

60. Tables and figures continued
Line graphs/scattergrams
• Un-crowded plots
• 3 or 4 data sets per figure
• Data sets should be easily distinguishable
• Appropriately selected scales and axis label sizes
• Symbols should be clear to read
• Graph as much data as possible
Photographs
• A professional quality scale marker in a corner must be included
• Only English text in photos
Use colour ONLY when necessary
• If different line styles can clarify the meaning, then avoid using colours or
other thrilling effects
• Colours must be visible and distinguishable when printed in black & white

61. Discussion: what does it all mean?
Organisation: Specific to the general
• Findings to the literature, to theory and to practice
• Summarise the principal implications regardless of statistical significance
• Discuss everything but be concise, brief and specific
• Perfect tense
Restate the hypothesis
• Answer the questions/provide solutions to the problems
• Support with the results
Pitfalls to avoid
• Don’t claim to be first
• Don’t ramble
• Don’t review the literature
• Unless for context and acknowledging key previous efforts in the field

62. Discussion: continued
Each major finding/result in perspective
• Describe the patterns, principles, and relationships
• First state the answer to question, then the relevant results and then cite
the work of others
• Describe how the results are consistent with previously published
knowledge
• If necessary, refer to a figure or table to enhance the “story”
Discuss and evaluate
• Conflicting explanations for the results
• Unexpected findings
Explain the importance of the results
• Influence our knowledge or understanding of the problem being examined
• Avoid undue speculation without supporting results
• Discuss statistical vs. clinical significance

63. Discussion: continued some more
Limitations and weaknesses
• Don’t be apologetic
• How and in what way are they important to the interpretation of
the results
• How they may affect the validity of the findings
Recommendations for further research
• Max two
• Don’t suggest that which could and should have been addressed

64. Conclusion
Summarise
the findings
• Clearly and concisely state the
principal findings
• Discuss all ambiguous data
Generalize
their
importance
and
relevance
• Discuss the findings in relation to
previous work
• Briefly discuss how they support or
contradict hypothesis
• Present global and specific
conclusions as a final thought
• Understate the conclusions but be
clear about the implications of the
study based upon the data
Recommend
further
research

65. Revise, revise and revise again…
Be your own harshest critic
• Rewrite the whole article
• Look out for redundancies
• Illogical inconsistencies
• Read it out loud several times
• Sleep on it
• Give an oral presentation
• Give it to someone else to read
• A colleague in the same field
• A colleague in the same department
• An intelligent and discerning friend

66. To publish or not to publish?
Publish…
• Presenting new, original results or methods
• Rationalizing, refining or reinterpreting
published results
• Reviewing or summarizing a particular subject
or field
Don’t publish…
• If the article is of no scientific interest
• The research is out of date
• Duplicating previously published work
• Conclusions are incorrect/not acceptable

67. An excellent article
The manuscript is timely and relevant
to a current problem
The manuscript is well written,
logical and easy to comprehend
The study is well designed and uses
the appropriate methodology

68. The cover letter
Opportunity to correspond directly with the journal
editor.
• Will not be rejected if bad
• Might leave a bad impression
• Good cover letter may accelerate the editorial process
Another opportunity to advertise your research
• Don’t summarize the manuscript
• Don’t repeat the abstract
• Show the big picture including the background
• How is it special and/or worthwhile to the journal?
• Mention why the manuscript is original and what your purpose is
• Very briefly explain
• What was done and what was found
• How will this interest the readers?

69. The cover letter: continued
Be transparent
• If the manuscript has been previously rejected
• Took the opportunity to revise it several more
times
Mention special requirements
• Conflicts of interest
• Suggested reviewers and those who should not
review
• Final approval of all co-authors

70. References
• Any information which is neither from your experiment
nor ‘common knowledge’ should be recognised by a
citation
• In press with a Data Object Indentifier (DOI) is allowed
• 10.1016/j.drugpo.2015.01.017
• An alphanumeric designed for a specific journal so as to
indentify an object such as an electronic document
If any previously published work is used
then the source must acknowledged
• Always refer to the Guide for Authors
• Harvard
• Vancouver
Reference styles

71. Harvard Reference Style
Uses the author's name and date of
publication in the body of the text
and is alphabetical by author in the
references
• Adams, A.B. (1983a) Article title: subtitle.
Journal Title 46 (Suppl. 2), 617-619.
• Adams, A.B. (1983b) Book Title. Publisher, New
York.
• Bennett, W.P., Hoskins, M.A., Brady, F.P. et al.
(1993) Article title. Journal Title 334 , 31-35.

72. Vancouver Reference Style
Number series to indicate references
in the body of the text and reference
section lists these in numerical order
as they appear in the text
• 1. Adams, A.B. (1983) Article title: subtitle.
Journal Title 46 (Suppl. 2), 617-619.
• 2. Lessells, D.E. (1989) Chapter title. In: Arnold,
J.R. & Davies, G.H.B. (eds.) Book Title , 3rd edn.
Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp. 32-
68.
• 3. Bennett, W.P., Hoskins, M.A., Brady, F.P. et al.
(1993) Article title. Journal Title 334 , 31-35.

73. Reporting guidelines
 The various study designs have specific
reporting guidelines which include:
◦ Randomized trials CONSORT
◦ Observational studies STROBE
◦ Systematic reviews and meta-analyses PRISMA
◦ Studies of diagnostic accuracy STARD
◦ Reporting qualitative research COREQ
◦ Synthesis of qualitative research ENTREQ
◦ Quality improvement in health care SQUIRE
◦ Defining standard protocol items for clinical trials
SPIRIT
◦ More can be found on http://www.equator-
network.org/

75. Examples of reference styles
 International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Uniform
Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical
Journals: Sample References
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/uniform_requirements.html
 How to Cite References Murdoch University, Australia
http://library.murdoch.edu.au/Students/Referencing/
 BMA Reference Styles
http://bma.org.uk/about-the-bma/bma-library/library-
guide/reference-styles

76. Useful resources
 EQUATOR Network website - resource centre for good reporting of health research
studies http://www.equator-network.org/
 Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals
http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/manuscript-preparation/
 Revised Good Publication Practice (GPP2) to ensure company sponsored medical research is
published in a responsible and ethical manner. http://www.ismpp.org/gpp2
 Medical Publishing Insights and Practices Initiative (MPIP) http://www.ismpp.org/mpip
 Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) http://publicationethics.org
 White paper on the author’s responsibilities
http://publicationethics.org/files/International%20standards_authors_for%20website_11_Nov_20
11.pdf
 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) http://www.ease.org.uk/
 Council of Science Editors (CSE) http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/
 http://www.benchfly.com/blog/h-index-what-it-is-and-how-to-find-yours/
 Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers and journals
http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/
 Office of Research Integrity, University of Alaska at Fairbanks, http://www.uaf.edu/ori/responsible-
conduct/
 The ten different types of plagiarism http://www.plagiarism.org/plagiarism-101/types-of-
plagiarism
 Data collection and integrity
http://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/n_illinois_u/datamanagement/dctopic.html
 Figure manipulation http://jcb.rupress.org/content/166/1/11.full
 A Step by Step Guide to Writing a Scientific Manuscript
http://www.aaeditor.org/StepByStepGuide.pdf
 How to write a paper in scientific journal style and format
◦ http://abacus.bates.edu/~ganderso/biology/resources/writing/HTWtoc.html
◦ www.sfedit.net

77. Checklist: Part 1
Spell check has been performed.
Cited everything that needs citing.
Followed reporting guidelines and protocols.
Text is left justified.
The numbers in the Abstract are consistent with the numbers in the
Results.
The Results section refers to the measurements described in the Materials
and Methods section

78. Checklist: Part 2
Read the manuscript aloud to yourself. Does everything read smoothly? Is it
easy to understand? Does something sound odd in terms of language,
presentation, facts, or context?
The manuscript addresses the “So what?” question? (Why should anyone
care about this paper?)
Limitations are discussed at the end of the discussion.
The study answers the question posed in the introduction.
The manuscript is consistent (e.g., the abstract, introduction, results,
discussion, tables and figures are internally consistent).
The conclusions are supported by the data?
The conclusion in the abstract is the same as the conclusion in the
discussion.

79. Be persistent

80. Questions?
My contact details:
Hythm Shibl
Managing Editor and Publishing Representative
Scientific Journals Unit
Vice-Rectorate for Graduate Studies and
Scientific Research
Prince Salman Library, Building 27
King Saud University
Mobile:- +966 564287837
Office Landline:- +9661 4693843
Email:- mr.h.shibl@gmail.com