Almost 70 years have passed since Abraham Maslow’s classic Psychological Review paper proposing a hierarchical approach to human motivation. Maslow’s model had an immense influence on the field of psychology, including the subfields of personality, social psychology, psychopathology, developmental psychology, and organizational behavior, and it continues to be cited widely in 28/10/ · Symposium SF01—Materials Research Needs to Advance Nuclear Fuels, Structural Materials and Wasteforms Call for Papers; Symposium SF02—Actinide Materials—From Basic Science to Applications Call for Papers; Symposium SF03—Paper-Based Packaging—21 st Century Perspectives on an Ancient Material Call for Papers Andrew File System (AFS) ended service on January 1, AFS was a file system and sharing platform that allowed users to access and distribute stored content. AFS
Phd dissertation history pdf
Try out PMC Labs and tell us what you think. Learn More. Since then, there has been an enormous proliferation of scientific journals and manuscripts so that, at present, how to write a history research paper abstract mf, the numbers of biomedical how to write a history research paper abstract mf published annually by over 20, journals, at a rate of 5, new papers per day, far exceeds 2, 12.
Published scientific papers and professional meetings are really essential to disseminate relevant information and research findings. However, most of the abstracts of presentations given at scientific meetings are usually available only in conference proceedings although they have the potential to be subsequently published as articles in peer-reviewed journals.
A recently published Cochrane review showed that only Possible reasons for failed publication include lack of time, research still underway, problems with co-authors and negative results 4.
Undoubtedly, lack of the necessary skills and experience in the process of writing and publishing is another possible contributing factor also in the field of Transfusion Medicine although the specialists in this discipline are currently adopting the principles and research methodologies that support evidence-based medicine 5and high-level research is actually being carried out at the same rate as in all medical specialties. There are three broad groups of manuscripts: original scientific articles, reviews and case reports.
Although case reports are part of the evidence hierarchy in evidence-based practice, albeit at a lower level, how to write a history research paper abstract mf case series are incorporated in a significant proportion of health technology assessments 6this article will how to write a history research paper abstract mf the multiple steps required in writing original articles and reviews with the aim of providing the reader with the necessary tools to prepare, submit and successfully publish a manuscript.
From then on, the initial structure of scientific papers evolved gradually from letters usually by a single author, with a polite style and contemporarily addressing multiple subjects and experimental reports essentially descriptive and presenting experiences and effects in chronological order to a better structured and more fluent form characterised by an embryonic description of methods and interpretation of results.
This evolved way of reporting experiments gradually replaced the letter form. At the beginning of the last century a gradual decrease of the use of the literary style coincided with a growing standardisation of the editorial rules that paved the way for the formal established Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion IMRAD structure of scientific papers, which was adopted in the s.
At present, IMRAD is the format encouraged for the text of observational i. The Uniform Requirements are released by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors ICMJEan evolution of the initial group of Journal Editors who met for the first time in Vancouver in and subsequently issued a number of editorial policy statements and guidelines for manuscript submission. In addition it facilitates modular reading and locating of specific information, which is normally found in pre-established sections of an article 7.
This format does not comprise other important and integral parts of the article, such as the Title Page, Abstract, Acknowledgements, Figures and Tables comprising their legends and References 8. The latest edition of the Uniform Requirements was updated in April ; it is available at the ICMJE website and is an essential guideline for all authors writing a biomedical manuscript 9.
Medical science depends entirely on the transparent reporting of clinical trials Unfortunately, several reviews have documented deficiencies in reports of clinical trials 11 — Ina group of scientists and editors developed the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials CONSORT statement which is intended to improve the reporting of a randomised, controlled trial RCTenabling readers to understand the design of a trial, its conduct, analysis and interpretation and to assess the validity of its results It emphasises that this can only be achieved through complete transparency from authors, how to write a history research paper abstract mf.
The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCT and many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed it. The statement consists of a checklist 25 items and a flow diagram that authors can use for reporting a RCT. The checklist items pertain to the content of the Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion and Other information, how to write a history research paper abstract mf.
The flow diagram is intended to depict the passage of participants through a RCT enrolment, intervention allocation, follow-up and analysis. It is strongly recommended that the CONSORT Statement be used in conjunction with the CONSORT Explanation and Elaboration Document which is available at the CONSORT website under the above mentioned section Another major point to consider is the obligation to register clinical trials 9.
In September the ICMJE changed their policy and decided they would consider trials for publication only if they had been registered before the enrolment of the first participant. The ICMJE accepts registration in the international registries listed in Table I.
International trial registries acceptable to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and relevant websites. The reporting of observational studies frequently lacks details and is not clear enough 18 Consequently the quality is poor although many questions in medical research are investigated in observational studies and overwhelming evidence is also extrapolated from them In fact, observational studies are more suitable for the detection of rare or late adverse effects of treatments, and are more likely to provide an indication of what is achieved in daily medical practice To improve the reporting of observational studies cohort, case-control or cross-sectional studies a group of methodologists, researchers and editors developed a useful checklist of 22 items: the StrengThening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology STROBE Statement The checklist items pertain to the content of the Title, Abstract, how to write a history research paper abstract mf, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion and Other information sections of articles.
They also include a draft checklist for conference abstracts items to be included when reporting observational studies in a conference abstract pertaining to the content of the following sections: Title, Authors, Study design, Objective, Methods, Results and Conclusion. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors on how to improve the reporting of observational studies, it facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies and is widely supported by reviewers, a growing number of biomedical journal editors and readers.
The STROBE checklist is best used in conjunction with an explanation and elaboration article which discusses each of the 22 checklist items, gives methodological background, publishes examples of transparent reporting and is freely available at the STROBE Statement website under the above mentioned section through the link with the Journals in which the document has been published PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine and Epidemiology In addition, they should provide an updated reference for those readers interested in broadening their knowledge of critical issues.
Review articles are, therefore, important not only for younger physicians early in their career but also for senior academic staff as they represent a tool for intellectual enrichment and enhancement of the standards of research. Writing a review requires knowledge and continuous improvement of qualifications in line with the accumulation of better and updated scientific literature evidence.
For this reason, journals often invite experts on a specific topic to write a review article. However, authors can also ask Editors if they would be interested in publishing a review article on a particular, topical, relevant and debated issue.
As reviews are the most accessed among the various types of articles and contribute substantially to the impact factor of journals, obviously they are welcomed and encouraged by many journals and have become an inseparable part of the writing scientific culture. The three basic types of literature reviews are narrative reviews which include editorials, commentaries and narrative overviews or non-systematic narrative reviewsqualitative systematic reviews and quantitative systematic reviews meta-analyses Table II Editorials, typically written by the editor of the journal or an invited guest, may be a narrative review if the author retrieves and summarises information about a particular topic for the reader Usually, these types of narrative reviews are based upon a short, select and narrowly focused review of only a few papers.
Commentaries may also be written as a narrative review; however, they are typically written with a particular opinion being expressed Commentaries are usually shorter than a full-length review article and the author should be an expert in the content area of the commentary.
Non-systematic narrative reviews are comprehensive narrative syntheses of previously published information Authors of narrative overviews are often acknowledged experts in the field and have conducted research themselves. Editors sometimes solicit narrative overviews from specific authors in order to bring certain issues to light.
Although the bibliographic research methodology is an obligatory section in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, it is also becoming an inseparable part of narrative literature reviews.
Providing information on the databases accessed, terms, inclusion and exclusion criteria and time limits adds objectivity to the main messages and conclusions.
It is advisable to use only credible databases at least two or three which only select high-quality publications that contain the most up-to-date information see Table III The best way to organise the analysis of the sources in the main text of a narrative biomedical review is to transform information from the retrieved publications into bibliographic cards with a short description of the main results, level of evidence, strengths and limitations of each study and relevance to each section of the manuscript.
Furthermore, the readability of a review can be improved by including a few self-explanatory tables, boxes, and figures synthesising essential information and conveying original messages We also suggest the use of software packages for reference management, which saves time during the multiple revisions.
In conclusion, a successful narrative review should have the following characteristics: be well-structured, synthesise the available evidence pertaining to the topic, convey a clear message and draw conclusions supported by data analysis.
Qualitative systematic reviews are a type of literature review that employ detailed, rigorous and explicit methods and are, therefore, a more powerful evidence-based source to garner clinical information than narrative reviews, case reports, case series, and poorly conducted cohort studies. A detailed bibliographic research based upon a focused question or purpose is the peculiar characteristic of a systematic review These reviews are called qualitative because the process by which the individual studies are integrated includes a summary and critique of the findings derived from systematic methods, but does not statistically combine the results of all of the studies reviewed.
A quantitative systematic review or meta-analysis critically evaluates each paper and statistically combines the results of the studies While this process leads to a more powerful and generalizable conclusion, which is the strength of the meta-analysis, on the other hand it can pool together studies that are very heterogeneous which is the main drawback of a quantitative systematic review.
Nevertheless, well-executed quantitative systematic reviews constitute the highest level of evidence for medical decision making The recently published Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses PRISMA statement aims to help improve reporting, focusing on systematic reviews of RCT.
The Statement consists how to write a history research paper abstract mf a checklist of 27 essential items for transparent reporting and a flow diagram for the phases of study selection and how to write a history research paper abstract mf accompanied by the PRISMA Explanation and Elaboration Document, how to write a history research paper abstract mf, which, among other things, provides examples of good reporting for the various review sections A further guidance on the reporting of systematic reviews has been published by the Cochrane Collaboration, an international organisation that prepares, updates and publishes systematic reviews of the effects of health-care interventions following a standardised format The question or hypothesis formulated by the investigator is the common starting point to search the relevant published literature for an answer Gathering the background information through an extensive literature search relevant to the topic of interest is the subsequent essential step.
Peer reviewers are often experts and not citing important articles poses the manuscript at risk of rejection. In addition, avoid using papers published more than 10 years ago and do not rely on how to write a history research paper abstract mf the abstracts but obtain full-text articles.
Articles relevant to the research topic and published in the journal in which the paper is to be submitted should be reviewed and cited Last but not least, the bibliographical search should also aim at finding recently published articles similar to the one the author intends to submit. In fact, a journal can be less interested in publishing such a manuscript unless the results reflect new or different findings.
It can be worth thinking about this issue before starting to write as a proper choice of the journal can affect not only the writing style but also how to write a history research paper abstract mf ease of publication and the prompt dissemination of research.
Ideally, the target journal should be the one in which similar work has been published Electronic and open-access journals are the latest resources for publishing and data dissemination available on the scientific journal horizon.
It is also worth considering an appropriate level of impact factor or journal quality. The impact factor of a journal is a measure reflecting the average number of citations to recent articles published in science and social science journals. It is determined by the ratio of the number of citations of papers from that journal in the whole of the biomedical literature over a 2-year period. It is frequently used as a proxy for the relative importance of a journal within its field, with journals with higher impact factors deemed to be more important than those with lower ones.
It is also extremely important to read the instructions to authors section of the selected journal carefully. In fact, although there is a general style for most biomedical journals as agreed by the ICMJE in the Uniform Requirements 9individual journals may differ slightly in detail.
It is always best to sort out authorship before writing a manuscript as authorship order can be a source of problems once the paper has been written Several guidelines relating to authorship are available and this issue has been extensively addressed in a recently published review article by Elizabeth Wager Most guidelines on the authorship of scientific articles are focused more on creative and intellectual aspects of research than on routine or technical contributions.
Alhough not universally accepted, the authorship criteria suggested by the ICMJE are the ones most widely promoted by medical journals 9. According to these criteria, co-authors should: i substantially contribute to conception and design of the study, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; ii draft the article or revise it critically for important intellectual content; and iii approve the final version.
The authors are listed in decreasing order of their contribution and the senior author, or mentor, should be the last but this convention has never been codified It is advisable to provide accurate affiliations and contacts as they will be published on PubMed as well as in the journal but it is also important to agree on the corresponding author who should have full access to the study data and through the provided e-mail address will be the link with the scientific community for the future 1.
In addition to the authorship how to write a history research paper abstract mf above, there are several ethical issues involved in writing a paper. These include fabrication of data, duplicate publication, plagiarism, misuse of statistics, manipulation of images and inadequate or obviously false citations A must-read for all those who are involved in any editorial activity are the guidelines released by the Committee on Publication Ethics COPE which is a forum for editors and publishers of peer-reviewed journals to discuss all aspects of publication ethics COPE provides advice to editors and publishers on all aspects of publication ethics and, in particular, how to handle cases of research and publication misconduct.
Several models for the initial draft exist. According to these authors, the writing should start with making figures and tables, and then proceed with summary statements the conclusions summarising the major contributions of the manuscript to the scientific communityidentification of the audience, materials and methods, results, discussion, references, introduction, title and conclusion.
A further and more general strategy to increase productivity during the early phases of manuscript writing is to ignore at the outset all the details that can be approached later such as structure, grammar and spelling.
How to Write an Abstract for a Research Paper
, time: 7:29
28/10/ · Symposium SF01—Materials Research Needs to Advance Nuclear Fuels, Structural Materials and Wasteforms Call for Papers; Symposium SF02—Actinide Materials—From Basic Science to Applications Call for Papers; Symposium SF03—Paper-Based Packaging—21 st Century Perspectives on an Ancient Material Call for Papers Andrew File System (AFS) ended service on January 1, AFS was a file system and sharing platform that allowed users to access and distribute stored content. AFS Almost 70 years have passed since Abraham Maslow’s classic Psychological Review paper proposing a hierarchical approach to human motivation. Maslow’s model had an immense influence on the field of psychology, including the subfields of personality, social psychology, psychopathology, developmental psychology, and organizational behavior, and it continues to be cited widely in
No comments:
Post a Comment