Scientific writing in 5 steps

Read here: Recommended format for a 'research protocol'

• Clinical Trial Registration Form here

• Plan your Data Management Plan (DMP) Template here or create in ARGOS. More information here.

For the protocol, consider all the items according to your research question and study design, as

• Randomised controlled trials (RCTs): CONSORT guidelines, flowchart and structured abstract checklist

• Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: PRISMA guidelines, flowchart and structured abstract checklist

• Observational studies in epidemiology: STROBE guidelines (also refer to RECORD for observational studies using routinely collected health data) and MOOSE guidelines

If you are unsure which guidelines are the most relevant for your type of study, please use the online tool developed by the EQUATOR Network.

1.2. Obtain the ethical approval of your IRB

1.3 Publish your protocol:  

• ISRCTN registry

• OSF Registries

• or elsewhere as Trials

Ideally, it would be best to decide which journal to submit to before you start writing the final report to ensure you follow the specific journal's instructions. 

Now, to which journal you should submit your final report? 

There are three ways, in order of preference.

1. In the best case, your research question started with a question raised by previous research. In this case, you should opt for the same journal where the question was raised and indicate to the editor that your research aims to address the question raised in the article published in their journal. 

2. If you are raising a problem from multiple previous research, then you should see which journal is the most cited in your references and choose that one. 

3. if you are still in doubt, you can use an online tool.

However, be careful not to fall for predatory journal offers, which invite you to publish for a fee. Follow the guidelines at Think-Check-Submit

In what order is it preferable to write the final report?

First, start with the objective or research question and then write the material and methods in detail. If you already have a good protocol published, the methods and introduction section should be ready.  The start the descriptive analysis of the results, read here. 

Then, perform the explanatory/hypothesis analysis and select a figure or table that summarises the main result or answer to the question. 

With this table or figure in mind, write the result, the discussion, and the introduction.  (You can modify the introduction from the Protocol) 

With all this, you can write the abstract and, finally, the title.

In summary

1. Material and methods (almost complete in the Protocol) 

2. Results

3. Discussion

4. Introduction (almost complete in the Protocol)

5. Summary

6. Title

Since you should have identified the appropriate design for the study question, you should write this section following any guidelines available on Equator-network according to the specific design. 

The most common questions and designs are:

• Randomised controlled trials (RCTs): CONSORT guidelines, flowchart and structured abstract checklist

• Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: PRISMA guidelines, flowchart and structured abstract checklist

• Observational studies in epidemiology: STROBE guidelines (also refer to RECORD for observational studies using routinely collected health data) and MOOSE guidelines

• Diagnostic accuracy studies: STARD guidelines

• Quality improvement studies: SQUIRE guidelines

• Multivariate prediction models: TRIPOD guidelines

• Economic evaluation studies: CHEERS guidelines

• Animal pre-clinical studies: ARRIVE guidelines

• Web-based surveys: CHERRIES guidelines

• Studies using data from electronic health records: CODE-EHR guidelines

• Artificial intelligence in Dentistry: Artificial intelligence in dental research: Checklist for authors, reviewers, readers

If you are unsure which guidelines are the most relevant for your type of study, please use the online tool developed by the EQUATOR Network.

In practice, this is where you start writing your article. After analysing the data, you get a figure representing the result and with that figure in mind, you structure the whole text. 

When formulating the results section, it's important to remember that the results of a study do not prove anything. Research results can only confirm or reject the research problem underpinning your study. However, the act of articulating the results helps you to understand the problem from within, to break it into pieces, and to view the research problem from various perspectives.

The page length of this section is set by the amount and types of data to be reported. Be concise, using non-textual elements, such as figures and tables, if appropriate, to present results more effectively. In deciding what data to describe in your results section, you must clearly distinguish material that would normally be included in a research paper from any raw data or other material that could be included as an appendix. In general, raw data should not be included in the main text of your paper unless requested to do so by your professor.

Avoid providing data that is not critical to answering the research question. The background information you described in the introduction section should provide the reader with any additional context or explanation needed to understand the results. A good rule is to always re-read the background section of your paper after you have written up your results to ensure that the reader has enough context to understand the results [and, later, how you interpreted the results in the discussion section of your paper].

II.  Content

In general, the content of your results section should include the following elements:

1. An introductory context for understanding the results by restating the research problem that underpins the purpose of your study.

2. A summary of your key findings arranged in a logical sequence that generally follows your methodology section.

3. Inclusion of non-textual elements, such as, figures, charts, photos, maps, tables, etc. to further illustrate the findings, if appropriate.

4. In the text, a systematic description of your results, highlighting for the reader observations that are most relevant to the topic under investigation [remember that not all results that emerge from the methodology that you used to gather the data may be relevant].

5. Use of the past tense when refering to your results.

6. The page length of your results section is guided by the amount and types of data to be reported. However, focus only on findings that are important and related to addressing the research problem.

Using Non-textual Elements

• Either place figures, tables, charts, etc. within the text of the result, or include them in the back of the report--do one or the other but never do both.

• In the text, refer to each non-textual element in numbered order [e.g.,  Table 1, Table 2; Chart 1, Chart 2; Map 1, Map 2].

• If you place non-textual elements at the end of the report, make sure they are clearly distinguished from any attached appendix materials, such as raw data.

• Regardless of placement, each non-textual element must be numbered consecutively and complete with caption [caption goes under the figure, table, chart, etc.]

• Each non-textual element must be titled, numbered consecutively, and complete with a heading [title with description goes above the figure, table, chart, etc.].

• In proofreading your results section, be sure that each non-textual element is sufficiently complete so that it could stand on its own, separate from the text.

III. Problems to Avoid

When writing the results section, avoid doing the following:

1. Discussing or interpreting your results. Save all this for the next section of your paper, although where appropriate, you should compare or contrast specific results to those found in other studies [e.g., "Similar to Smith [1990], one of the findings of this study is the strong correlation between motivation and academic achievement...."].

2. Reporting background information or attempting to explain your findings; this should have been done in your Introduction section, but don't panic! Often the results of a study point to the need to provide additional background information or to explain the topic further, so don't think you did something wrong. Revise your introduction as needed.

3. Ignoring negative results. If some of your results fail to support your hypothesis, do not ignore them. Document them, then state in your discussion section why you believe a negative result emerged from your study. Note that negative results, and how you handle them, often provides you with the opportunity to write a more engaging discussion section, therefore, don't be afraid to highlight them.

4. Including raw data or intermediate calculations. Ask your professor if you need to include any raw data generated by your study, such as transcripts from interviews or data files. If raw data is to be included, place it in an appendix or set of appendices that are referred to in the text.

5. Be as factual and concise as possible in reporting your findings. Do not use phrases that are vague or non-specific, such as, "appeared to be greater or lesser than..." or "demonstrates promising trends that...."

6. Presenting the same data or repeating the same information more than once. If you feel the need to highlight something, you will have a chance to do that in the discussion section.

7. Figures and tables: Vickers AJ, Assel MJ, Sjoberg DD, Qin R, Zhao Z, Koyama T, et al. Guidelines for Reporting of Figures and Tables for Clinical Research in Urology. Eur Urol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.04.048.

8. Statistics: 

   1. How to report statistics

   2. Assel M, Sjoberg D, Elders A, Wang X, Huo D, Botchway A, et al. Guidelines for reporting of statistics for clinical research in urology. BJU Int. 2019;123:401–10.

1. what is the main result, and what does it mean 

2. what are the advantages and limitations of the design used and their impact on the interpretation of the results

3. comparison with other studies, with an emphasis on the methodologies used

4. what these results mean for the clinic

5. what remains to be known and future studies

More information PLOS

1. Identify what the problem is

2. Quantifies its magnitude: prevalence, incidence, severity, and vulnerability.

3. Describes what is known about the problem, with emphasis on the methodologies used

4. Describes what is not known, and why it is important to know this information.

5. State the objective of this research

1. How to share research data

2. Data sharing 

3. RSU Dataverse repository

With a Twitter thread (example here and here), through Linkedin, Facebook, TikTok, Instagram or any social media.

Write a blog post explaining in lay terms your research, the importance and the meaning of your results.