Assuming that your results show trends or movements over time, such as nicotine concentration in plasma after smoking, a good way to display your data would be to construct a line graph. But do not rely on the computer to design it for you. Here are some common errors.

The line graph

This seemingly excellent line graph nevertheless appears to have two common defects: the curves are distinguished both by type of line and by type of data-point symbol – either would suffice; and the curves are identified by a separate key, obliging the reader to scan back and forth to the key to see what they represent.

In the two redrawn graphs (5.2), the curves are labeled directly and distinguished either by type of data-point symbol or by type of line.

Open and filled circles, as in the left graph, are the data-point symbols easiest to distinguish. They can also be used symbolically; for instance, if an experiment has been performed with (•) and without (O) treatment, the emptiness of the open circle suggests that nothing has been administered.

Other standard symbols for data points are open and filled squares and triangles (□ ▪ ▴). If you need more symbols, you probably have too many curves for one graph, and you should consider dividing it into two or presenting your observations in a table.

Too often, statistics are used “as a drunken man uses a lamp post, more for support than illumination” (Sumner 1992). Experts in the field can tell whether your study really needs statistics; if it does, they can help you to plan the statistical part of your study, for example, to estimate the sample size needed to demonstrate a difference (if it exists) and to choose appropriate statistical methods.

Then, when your study is completed, you will encounter another serious matter: how to present the statistical results. About half of such presentations contain statistical errors (Murray 1991). Here are the most common ones.

Using mean when median is meant

In a descriptive study on back pain in pregnancy, the women were asked to bend over with their arms hanging down. The distance between fingertips and floor was then measured. The result (mean and standard deviation) was reported as

12 ± 14 cm

thus ranging between -2 and 26 cm, suggesting that some of the women must have poked their fingertips a couple of centimeters through the floorboards. This surprising conclusion is the result of reporting asymmetrically distributed (skewed) data by using mean (the average) and standard deviation instead of median (the value midway between the lowest and the highest value) and a percentile range, such as the interquartile range (25th to 75th percentile).

The content of a table may be either descriptive, as is most often the case, or declarative (bearing a message). It helps the reader if this is reflected in the table's title.

The descriptive title

The descriptive title is used for tables that present detailed information, such as the one below (only part of the original table is shown).

This table is from a paper of which I was a coauthor. Now, with the benefit of hindsight, I see that this title contains the common error of repeating every single heading, except, in this case, the first one. No fewer than 31 of the 39 words in the title can be deleted. The shortened version can be grasped at a glance:

The declarative title

If a table shows a clear trend or relationship, a declarative title could be preferable. The following table shows that the frequency of fractured clavicles increased with increasing birth weight.

But the title is neutral and one has to study the table for a while in order to grasp the message. It would have helped the reader if the table's message had been stated in the title:

Rounding off

In the table's far right-hand column, the percentages shown are overprecise. One decimal would suffice (see Chapter 20, “Percentages”).

Although my first drawing could have been published with only slight improvements, I let an artist redraw it, by hand. (We had no computers in those days!) The picture was improved – but it cost me a small fortune. Ever since, I have done my drawings myself. This is perhaps not such a bad thing after all, because the pictures will express exactly what I mean.

Such a drawing, done by one of the authors of a paper, is shown below.

The report was initiated by a serious complication to a laparoscopy, where a trocar (a sharp instrument) was stabbed into the large intestine during the initial phase of the procedure. The paper describes how this complication could be prevented – and the drawing tells exactly what the authors wanted to say. The picture cost them nothing!

Authors who wish to have their drawings done by a professional artist are recommended to provide the artist with a detailed sketch. The artist then scans the sketch into a computer where it is improved – much cheaper than drawing it by hand. Skilful illustrators, however, are a rare species and usually have a tight schedule. You should therefore contact them in good time; preferably before you begin to write the paper.

The following pair of figures shows the sketch (above) done by the author and the improved drawing (below) by the artist. Every detail is enhanced and given a professional look.

Here is a question from a course participant:

No, you aren't – if you do it politely. Thus not exactly in the way quoted below from a covering letter to the editor of Cardiovascular Research (Hearse and the Editorial Team 1992):

In this case the referee happened to be a most eminent researcher in electrophysiology. Try instead to write as though the referee were God the Father Himself. But don't hesitate to make your point:

Don't forget that the referee might have sacrificed hours of unpaid effort on your manuscript.

Do referees delay?

Here is another question from a course participant:

That referees delay publication while they incorporate the ideas of the refereed work into their own publication is extremely rare. With few exceptions, referees are honorable men and women.

If these words do not allay your fears, what can you do to protect your ideas from being stolen?

Methods are usually best described in the order in which they were used. So, in the following sentence, taken from a manuscript in preparation, it would be helpful if you reversed the order of presentation, as from:

to:

Unless a previously published method is generally known, the reader will appreciate being told its essential features. Thus, a reference figure may well be considered inadequate, as in this example from a manuscript in preparation:

Little need be added to give the reader the broad outline of the method (revised text in boldfaced italics):

The kidney volume was measured with an ultrasound apparatus containing a built-in volume program.

A new procedure, however, should be described in sufficient detail to allow a trained scientist to repeat the investigation. For the novice writer it can be hard to find a middle course between too much and too little information; often the novice errs on the side of too much. An experienced colleague can help to remove excess detail.

The subjects

I once saw a note taped to a door asking for volunteers – completely healthy, nonsmoking women aged 55 to 60 – to participate in a study of the effect of estrogen on blood circulation in the legs. The door led from a huge bicycle garage (reserved for workers at the hospital) into the elevator hall.

For every person who reads the whole of a scientific paper, about 500 read only the title (Kerkut 1983). One way to improve this statistic could be to make the title declarative by including what the paper says, not just what it covers.

Whenever possible, use a declarative rather than a neutral title

This title is neutral:

John Vane, in his classic paper published in Nature in 1971, put it more expressively:

(In 1988, Vane was awarded a Nobel Prize in acknowledgment of his discovery. Vane told us how aspirin relieves pain.)

The following declarative title is taken from the biological sciences (Marvin 1964):

Goodman et al. (2001) recommended that the study design also be included in the title, as follows (Lee et al 1995):

However, the following formulation is notrecommended (Quesada et al 1995):

Do the authors really mean to imply that the issue is settled once and for all? Your own present work should be referred to in the past tense:

This way of using a verb in a title makes it into a sentence. It is stronger than using a phrase, some say too strong.

Who should be an author? Let us discuss this delicate issue.

Guidelines on authorship

The criteria for authorship as defined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (1985; 2002) are scarcely known to many scientists. And even if known, they are often ignored, as they are considered too restrictive. According to the current criteria, as of January 27, 2002, all persons designated as authors of a paper should have:

1. (1) conceived and planned the work that led to the paper or interpreted the evidence it presents, or both;

2. (2) written the paper, or reviewed successive versions and taken part in the revision process; and

3. (3) approved the final version.

As all three conditions must be met, this implies that a skilled laboratory technician who does the necessary spadework or a clinician contributing patient material is unworthy of acknowledgment as a coauthor. So, then, which guidelines for authorship are applied in the real world? In the real world of research, most investigations nowadays are necessarily made by a team. Each member contributes different talents and skills. Irrespective of the nature of their contributions – intellectual (creative) or practical (doing the experiments) – all members of the team are usually acknowledged in the author byline.

The names also require some sort of ranking. The most prominent position, heading the list or in last place, is usually occupied by the team leader (often the author). The coauthors are then listed in descending order, reflecting how much each person contributed to the work.

A figure legend or caption may include two items:

1. (1) the title, which states the topic of the figure, and

2. (2) the message, which explains the contents of the figure.

In some cases a message alone will suffice.

However, most legends do not convey a message. Figure 7.1, with its typical legend, could be improved as shown in Figure 7.2.

In the revised illustration, Group A has been changed to Treated women and Group B to Controls so that the reader does not have to search in the main text to interpret these terms. The tick marks now face outwards, so that they do not encroach on the curve between 26 and 30 on the horizontal axis.

An illustrative example of a legend including the message alone is presented in Figure 8.1.

You should not forget to thank the people who have really helped you, but whose contributions do not justify authorship. But be specific. When I saw this acknowledgment, I wondered what exactly these persons had done (family names are fictitious):

In the following example it is evident what each person did:

But take care not to give others credit for your own work. Otherwise the reader will wonder what your contribution was.

The often used “wish to thank” can be shortened to “thank.” Avoid using professional or courtesy titles in the acknowledgment. The example above was written accordingly. It also tells us the given name of those acknowledged.

Persons you want to thank should be asked if they are willing to be acknowledged and if they approve the wording you have used to mention them. This is because colleagues who have read and corrected your manuscript may disagree with some of its central points. To acknowledge them could imply their approval of the content of the paper.

Always give credit for financial support

When you thank sources of financial assistance, be careful how you present their names.

Since 1946, an American newscaster named Paul Harvey has been broadcasting a radio segment called The Rest of the Story. It always begins as a quaint, apparently historical tale about someone that seems very average until the very end, when Harvey dramatically exposes a missing element that reveals the deeper significance hidden within. Then he concludes: “And now you know … the rrrrest of the story!”

You are now at that dramatic moment, ready to share your scientific tale with the world. Only relative details stand between you and scientific publication. We have no way of knowing what will come next in your life, but we are confident that you are on the brink of something great. Go forward with confidence. Soon you will be celebrating, and soon afterward, planning your next project.

PREPARING TO PUBLISH

You've just finished going through your document for what seems like the hundredth time. Take a break, and get some sleep, then come back to the document one last time. Nine basic questions provide a good framework for a final review of nearly any scientific paper. If any of them cause you problems, refer back to the material in earlier chapters.

Visual communication has both a verbal component – usually visual presentation of the written word – and an illustrative component such as drawings, diagrams, photos, and charts. Although both elements have long received attention in the context of the primary research article, scientific writing instruction has tended to treat other avenues of visual communication as a relatively minor afterthought. The implicit assumption has been that oral presentations and posters, for example, involve only minor repackaging of a written document and its supporting graphics. In recent years, however, this assumption has been challenged by new developments that have increased the status of visual communication and given it a surprisingly powerful role to play in modern scientific exchanges.

First, there is an increased understanding that when people look at a visual pattern, they process it differently than text (Gurak, 2000). Humans read each word of text and decipher it, but they quickly and efficiently perceive visual information as a unit. (How many times have you tried to assemble something and after puzzling over the written instructions, found yourself turning to the diagram?)

Second, communication has become increasingly international, with the outcome that science and technology must be accessible to people across a variety of languages. The use of symbols rather than written words can make concepts understandable around the world. At the same time, web publishing has given visual communication much greater force and international presence.

Like Charles Darwin, most of us need to go over our writing to disentangle confusion, particularly in word choice, syntax, and style. Syntax refers to the relationships between the words and other elements in a sentence. Style means the way something is done, or its basic “personality.” Thus we speak of a scientific writing style characterized by clarity and organization, an editorial style that presents written material in a certain way, or a typographic style with various artistic elements.

The importance of these three aspects of scientific writing springs from the precision which science requires. More than one interpretation of a sentence or phrase is unacceptable, so careful attention must be paid to both word choice and word arrangement.

This step may have been what you have been expecting – and dreading – from the start. Admittedly, it can be hard work, but stick with us.

CHAPTER 1

Exercise 1.1. Search strategy and Boolean logic (page 10)

1. A, H, J

2. B, E, G

3. D, F

4. A, B, D, E, F, G, H, J

5. F

6. C, I

Exercise 1.2. Message, format, and audience (page 19)

1. Probably not. Simple novelty or extension of a previous record usually is not enough to warrant publication. A case study must change, improve, or enlarge how people think.

2. The paper your colleague has proposed would have a purpose – to report the case findings – but as a research paper it would not have a message. However, a critical review of case records, coupled with a careful and critical assessment of the literature, might result in a valuable document. A case-series analysis or review article would help busy clinicians get information without laboriously sifting through the primary literature. It would tell investigators where things stand on particular aspects of the disease. And, if well written, it could suggest directions new research should take.

3. Yes, with proper choice of format. Written as a “me-too” series of case histories, the paper will probably be rejected. However, a case-series analysis that would include these data could be a useful contribution.

4. Only one primary research publication is justifiable, because all of the results bear upon your single message. However, this could be supplemented with general articles written for the popular press to reach other target audiences.

5. Psychological researchers, clinicians, psychologists, teachers, school administrators, parents.

Whether or not one is prepared to call them art, visual aids can be vitally important in presenting a scientist's message. They summarize and emphasize key points and reduce narrative length. They simplify information, and in this way enhance understanding. They improve the conciseness and clarity of the narrative. And finally, when carefully crafted, they add visual appeal.

Visual material supports the printed message. Picking up a classic research paper, scientists often scan graphics such as tables and figures to see whether the rest of a paper is worth reading. While they may not go on to study every sentence, they almost always look at every illustration. For this reason, each visual aid must contribute an essential part to the written or spoken story, and each must be capable of standing on its own without reference to the text.

For two major reasons, it pays to start preparing visual aids as early as possible in the writing process. First, because tables and figures present data in condensed form and help clarify and support ideas, they make writing easier. Second, sooner than you think, you'll be asked to give an oral presentation on your research. While the visual aids for a written document seldom are suitable for direct transfer into a slide presentation, they undeniably will form the basis for that presentation.

In this chapter, we'll present guidelines for various types of graphic aids for the traditional research paper.

Proper grammar, formatting, and citations are essential to effective written and oral communication. These fundamentals help avoid misunderstandings and reduce the chances of error in fact or interpretation.

Attention to detail is a little like housekeeping. When it is done well, no one is aware of it. When it is not, everyone can tell. If you skip this step, readers will notice. They may be willing to overlook small inconsistencies, but major blunders will distract their attention away from the primary purpose of the writing. No longer concentrating on the technical content, they start searching for more errors instead.

TWEAK THE TEXT

If effective scientific communication is like a well designed and smoothly operating machine, then grammar – the accepted system of rules by which words are formed and put together to make sentences – forms the nuts and bolts that hold it all together. The individual fasteners of punctuation, capitalization, and such may seem simple and unexciting to look at, but they are undeniably important if the machine is to hold together and function properly.

In this section, we suggest ways of avoiding and correcting some common mechanical mistakes that scientific writers tend to make.