Writing Tips

• Should be understood as a standalone. (The reader should not need the main text to understand them.)
• Use footnotes to explain statistically significant differences, describe experimental details, and define acronyms.
• Ensure numbers and percentages add up or provide an explanation in the footnotes if they don’t.
• Always include units of measurement.
• Use the same key phrases as the main text.
• Avoid duplicating data in Tables and Figures.
• Consider using drawings or diagrams to communicate tedious or complicated information.
• Consider what information is essential and what can be submitted as supplemental.

• Summarize at a high level what the data show. (big-picture trends, relationships.)
• Limit repeating numerical information from the Tables. Highlight only key findings.
• Don’t forget to mention the negative and control results.
• Reserve the term “significant” for statistically significant.
• Avoid mixing Results with Methods.
• Don't defend or explain the statistical methodology; save for Methods.
• Don't mix Results with the Discussion. (Results = what the data show. Discussion = what the data mean.) Only combine the two sections if the journal specifically asks for it.

• Give enough details for others to replicate the study.
• Consider using subheading to divide sections.
• Provide references for established methods to avoid verbosity.
• Use flow diagrams or tables if possible.
• Answer the Who, What, When, Where, How, and Why.
• Include institutional ethics committee approval, even if the study was waived.
  • Add the approval date and protocol ID. Some journals require it (no harm adding preemptively).
• Include a Declaration of Helsinki statement.
  • Some journals require it or something similar (no harm adding preemptively).
• Indicate if participants were compensated.

• Write for an educated audience using simple, straightforward language.
• Strive for concision.
• Avoid a comprehensive topic review.
• Aim for 3 paragraphs (range: 2-5).
• Start with broad information, end with narrow.

Example:

Paragraph 1. Provide a brief background to establish context. (what’s known)

Paragraph 2. Identify knowledge gaps and constraints in previous research. (what’s unknown). Group similar studies and summarize at a high level. Refrain from incorporating intricate details, speculations, and criticisms of individual studies. If unsure, consider whether the information is essential to grasp your study question/aim or whether it would better suited for the Discussion.

Avoid needless repetition in the Introduction and Discussion; it wastes words and gives the impression that you had little to discuss and therefore used background material to fill space.

Paragraph 3. Provide a clear rationale for why you started the study and what new information it will reveal. (statement of purpose).

Example phrasing includes: “We hypothesized that”, “We aimed to”, “This paper describes,” “We asked whether”

Optional: Include one or two brief sentences about your experimental method. Explain how your study will fill the knowledge gaps and why your study matters. Do not describe methods, results, or conclusions. Note: some journals (though not common) may require you to summarize the main finding in the Introduction; always refer to specific guidelines or read a recent issue for example.

• Start with narrow information, end with broad.
• Answer the question(s) asked/objective proposed. Explain what the findings mean at a high level. Explicitly state if the findings are novel. (main findings).
• Include any key secondary findings.
• Give possible mechanisms or pathways that might explain your data. Compare your findings to the literature. Do your results confirm or contradict others? Do you results support or challenge the paradigm? How do your findings fit into the literature? (put findings into context)
• Anticipate questions, criticisms, or concern and preemptively defend your conclusions. Explain why your results are robust. Add limitations relevant to your study; be specific. (strengths and limitations)
• Recommend confirmatory studies, address unanswered questions, and suggest future directions. (what’s next)
• Give the big-picture implication. Make readers care. (the “so what?”)
• Restate main findings.
• Conclude with a take-home message. Make it clear; avoid rambling.

• Always write last
• Should be understood as a stand alone.
• Define all acronyms; avoid if possible.

• Define all acronyms at first mention in the abstract, the main text, and each Figure/Table. Use sparingly in the text and only if it is commonly understood and introduced multiple times (consult the target journal’s guidelines on usage). Avoid use in abstract and titles if possible.
• Avoid repeating findings already known. Instead, emphasize new knowledge gained from your findings.
• Do not over-reach your findings. Focus on what your data show, not what you wished your data had shown.
• Avoid excess verbiage and unnecessary information.