Writing a scientific manuscript: Some formal and informal proposals

European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursinghttp://cnu.sagepub.com/Writing a Scientific Manuscript: Some Formal and Informal ProposalsBengt Fridlund, co-editorEur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2006 5: 185DOI: 10.1016/j.ejcnurse.2006.07.001The online version of this article can be found at:http://cnu.sagepub.com/content/5/3/185Published by:http://www.sagepublications.comOn behalf of:European Society of CardiologyAdditional services and information for European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing can be found at:Email Alerts: http://cnu.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsSubscriptions: http://cnu.sagepub.com/subscriptionsReprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navPermissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav>> Version of Record - Sep 1, 2006What is This?Downloaded from cnu.sagepub.comby guest on May 31, 2014

European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing 5 (2006) 185–187www.elsevier.com/locate/ejcnurseEditorialWriting a scientific manuscript: Some formal and informal proposalsWriting an empirical, scientific manuscript is one of themost important and yet daunting tasks facing the researcher.Writing, editing and publishing are the final steps in theresearch process [1] and mean deciding on a location andtime dedicated entirely to the process [2]. When planning amanuscript it is important to make a consistent effort todesign its structure in line with the selected journal'srecommendations, which must be followed meticulously.Most journals follow the so-called IMRaD principle(Introduction, Method, Results, and Discussion), withevery section supporting the key point [3]. The manuscriptusually consists of two main parts; theoretical and empirical(see Fig. 1). The theoretical part is the Introduction, whichincludes several key points: the main one of which concernsthe subject, i.e. the problem to be discussed and studied. Theproblem area should be descriptive and analytical as well asproviding definitions and epidemiological figures in order tofacilitate understanding of the target group and its extent,range, proportion, etc from an international as well as anational perspective. A second key point in the Introductionsection is the epistemological standpoint — as a researcherwhat is my attitude to available scientific knowledge? Aqualitative researcher takes an emic perspective, which is aninsider's point of view, as opposed to the etic perspective,which concerns the quantitative researcher and outsider view[4]. A third key point is the theoretical standpoint — is thestudy to be inductive or deductive? A study that is inductivehas a more open-minded approach while one that isdeductive has a more fixed framework [5]. The sub-headingof Theoretical base is quite inductive compared toConceptual framework and Theoretical framework, both ofwhich have a fairly fixed approach. A theoretical standpointis very useful in order to facilitate an understanding of theforthcoming empirical part, as it illuminates “what” and“why” I have chosen the measurements I have, such asinterviews and/or instruments. A fourth key point involves adescription as well as an analysis of the degree to which theproblem is known today and from what perspectives. It isuseful to report this literature review under a sub-heading,but in all cases it should be broken down by means ofanalysis in relation to the problem in question. Most journalsprefer the introduction section to end with the Aim; i.e. thatthe Aim captures and summarises the problem under study.Accordingly, this theoretical part of the manuscript is funnelshaped,leading up to a well-defined aim and one or severalresearch questions or hypotheses. The aim — usually writtenin the past tense — should contain “a scientific verb”, suchas conduct a survey or map out (inductive and observationaldesign), test or evaluate (deductive and experimental design)as well as target group, theoretical area of interest, andsometimes outcome variables [5]. An example each is “todevelop a grounded theory of nurses caring for palliativecancer patients in hospital care. The research questionguiding the study was: What is the main concern for nursescaring for palliative cancer patients in hospital care, and howdo they resolve it” [6] or “to compare persons who attendedthe Heart and Lung School after a cardiac event and thosewho declined participation, with regard to health aspects, lifesituation, social network and support, clinical data, rehospitalisationand mortality” [7].The empirical part contains five sections including theliterature used; Material and methods, Results, Discussion,Conclusions and implications and References. The Materialand method section provides information by which thevalidity and reliability of a study is judged [8]. As illustratedin Fig. 1, a classical way of presenting this section is by meansof sub-sections organised chronologically in order to presenta precise description and rationale for the study. The Designand setting sub-section provides information about whetherthe study was inductive or deductive as well as whether it hada quantitative or qualitative approach. Several journals alsodemand that this sub-section contains information showingthat the study was planned and implemented in compliancewith common ethical principles of clinical research [9]. Themost salient ethical issues are informed consent, confidentiality,researcher-participant relations and approval by anEthics Committee. The Setting should include where andwhen the study was performed. If the study had aninterventive design, an Intervention sub-section is essentialdescribing both standard and intervention care in order tounderstand the differences between organisation, content,structure, time interval, participants etc. Participants, also1474-5151/$ - see front matter © 2006 European Society of Cardiology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.ejcnurse.2006.07.001Downloaded from cnu.sagepub.com by guest on May 31, 2014

186 EditorialFig. 1. Proposals for the different sections and subsections with regard tostructure, content and in an empirical manuscript containing 2500–4000words divided into a theoretical and an empirical part.known as the sample or informants, provide informationabout the selection procedure and, in the case of a statisticalstudy, this section also includes power estimation as well as adrop-out analysis. Measurements or instruments as well asinterviews should, depending on whether a quantitative orqualitative approach is employed, provide brief descriptionsof items or questions asked. In the case of scales or index, thescale levels as well as validity and reliability figures should bestated, while in the event of a qualitative design, definition,rigour and trustworthiness should be included. Furthermore,if and how tests have been performed and evaluated should bespecified. The Data collection sub-section should includeinformation about when and how the measurements have“reached the participants”, for example retrospectively,prospectively or longitudinally. Finally, the Data analysissub-section should include information about the kind ofdescriptive and analytic procedure undertaken in line withrecognised rules and recommendations such as significancelevels, indexing, dichotomisation, exemplification, categorisation,coding and taxonomies. The Result section should begoverned by the aim, research questions and hypotheses aswell as outcome variables. It is of utmost importance that thefindings should be objective and not subject to theresearcher's personal values and judgements. The resultscan be presented in written form, figures and tables,irrespective of the design and approach. Several journalshave restrictions regarding the number of figures and tables;e.g. 6–8, which have to be condensed considerably in order tominimise the size of the article. Nevertheless, it is importantto remember that figures and tables should replace existingtext. The Discussion section should include considerationsrelated to both the methodology and the findings. Dependingon the journal chosen, the methodological reasoning can startor end the Discussion section, but it is usual to scrutinise andreflect on some concepts of methodological safety related tothe design and approach used [5], i.e. applicability (participantsand measurements chosen), concordance (validity orreasonableness), security (reliability or trustworthiness) andaccuracy (precision or conscientiousness). With regard to theResults section, it is common today to start with the mostimportant findings and compare them to other studies —whether supporting or otherwise — as well as reflecting onthem in terms of clinical practicability and meaningfulness.Less important results are discussed in the same manner andrelated to the aim, research questions, hypotheses andoutcome variables. It should be noted that in contrast to theResults section, the Discussion section can contain subjectivejudgements but obviously crucial standpoints have to becompared to and supported by other studies. The finalempirical section, Conclusions and implications, should beshort and concise and at a high level of abstraction withcomplete and definite answers to the research questions orhypotheses related to the aim of the study. Implicationsshould include both clinical and theoretical issues at anindividual, public, pedagogical and organisational level. Lastbut not least is the Reference section. For reasons of space,some journals limit the number of references to 20–30. Thus,it is best to select the most important, most recent and mostvaluable ones.In conclusion, it should be noted that nowadays mostjournals prefer around 2500–4000 words in an empiricalstudy, which makes it somewhat difficult to present“heavy” study aims or studies with a qualitative approachdue to the space required to explain the epistemologicaland theoretical standpoints as well as the findings. Anotherpoint to note, which is more stylistic and linguistic incharacter, is the tense in which the manuscript should bewritten. The Introduction and Discussion should be writtenin the present tense; i.e. describing and arguing for theproblem, aim and findings, while the remainder; i.e. mostlythe empirical part, should be in the past tense, as thesesections report the implementation and outcome of thestudy. Finally, journals that have a significant impact havemany contributors and therefore the possibility to onlyselect studies of high scientific value and status. However,it might be worth submitting to such journals, as — in theDownloaded from cnu.sagepub.com by guest on May 31, 2014

Editorial187event of rejection — most of them make valuablesuggestions and recommendations aimed at improvingand clarifying the content. In fact, 50% of initially rejectedarticles are eventually published [2].References[1] Branson RD. Anatomy of a research paper. Respir Care2004;49:1222–8.[2] Rosenfeldt FL, Dowling JT, Pepe S, Fullerton MJ. How to write a paperfor publication. Heart Lung Circ 2000;9:82–7.[3] Alexandrov AV. How to write a research paper. Cerebrovasc Dis2004;18:135–8.[4] Fridlund B, Hildingh C. Preface: qualitative research methods in theservice of health. Lund: Studentlitteratur; 2000. p. 11–2.[5] Fridlund B, Hildingh C. Health and qualitative analysis methods. Lund:Studentlitteratur; 2000. p. 13–25.[6] Sandgren A, Thulesius H, Fridlund B, Petersson K. Striving foremotional survival in palliative cancer nursing. Qual Health Res2006;16:79–96.[7] Hildingh C, Fridlund B. A 3-year follow-up of participation in peer supportgroups after a cardiac arrest. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2004;3:315–20.[8] Kallet RH. How to write the methods section of a research paper. RespirCare 2004;49:1229–32.[9] Fallberg LH. Patients' rights in the Nordic countries. Eur J Health Law2000;7:123–43.Bengt Fridlund, co-editorVäxjö University, SE-35195 Växjö, SwedenE-mail address: bengt.fridlund@vxu.se.Downloaded from cnu.sagepub.com by guest on May 31, 2014