How to write a publishable paper
Tell a story. As you review the literature to provide rationale for your study, progress through what is known to what is unknown, indicating the gaps in or limitations of the current work, orchestrating the information so that it is clear why your study is important Wysocki T, Fuqua RW.
To increase the probability that your paper will eventually be published, its usually better to choose an article from a better journal.
Coauthors should have appropriate opinions and input in various areas such as tables, figures, algorithms, etc. So make its every word count.
What is Plagiarism? Explain how they fit with those of other studies, extending, refuting, or confirming their findings. If you must use abbreviations, Materials and Methods is a good place to introduce them. Most of the resources are available freely on the web, but this article consolidates these resources in one place with prime emphasis on cytopathology manuscripts.
Many of these deserve credit, but may not fulfill criteria to be listed as an author. Before we begin, our apologies to those for whom this is obvious—our aim is not to be insulting or condescending.
You need to tell the reader only what he or she needs to know to understand this piece of work we know that you know much more than you are telling us here.
How to write an academic article
Visual representation of your data makes it easier for the reader to understand. Begin the Discussion with the answer to the question you posed in the Introduction. Shidham VB. The written portion of the Results that refers to the findings presented in tables and figures should not repeat that information. Discussion Is the answer to the study question buried somewhere in the Discussion? Performing a study research What shall I research? The theoretical framework often gets a bad reputation in the peer-review process, because reviewer comments often make suggestions regarding the theoretical framing of a manuscript. It is usually paired with an alternative hypothesis and the researcher tries to disprove the null hypothesis. Believing that inclusion of a prominent co-author will ensure acceptance of a poor quality manuscript is a common misconception and should be strongly discouraged. No result should appear in Results without a corresponding description of the method that yielded it in Methods. Although these may not be enumerated specifically by the journals, some of the features which may be highlighted are:[ 28 , 43 , 44 ] Insufficient statistical power; The topic is not interesting; Methodology insufficient to address the hypothesis; The topic is not novel and has been already covered widely; The topic, although novel, does not need special attention; Improper review of literature Poor statement of the hypothesis; The hypothesis is clear, but the manuscript fails to address it; Contradictions in the manuscript The topic is unrelated to the scope of the journal; Conclusion based on the data not provided or generated; Inconsistent and confusing use of terminologies; Avoidable blatant spelling errors; Failure to cite all tables, figures, and references in the manuscript. Have you presented your findings in one place only?
The introduction is critical in attracting the reader's attention.
based on 102 review