| Scientific research articles are a means for scientists | | | | marked by infallible evidence and sound reasoning, in |
| to transmit information about the study results to | | | | its favor? |
| other scientists as well as laypersons. A standard | | | | 8. Have you presented adequate supporting |
| format is used in these articles, which enables the | | | | evidence? |
| author to present the research in an orderly, logical | | | | 9. Have you selected an appropriate journal/audience |
| manner. This does not necessarily reflect the order in | | | | for your study? |
| which the scientist performed or planned the study. | | | | 10. Are there any guidelines recommended by the |
| This format is as follows: Title, Author Information, | | | | journal? |
| Abstract, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results | | | | 11. If there are, have all the journal guidelines been |
| (with Tables and Figures), Discussion, Conclusions, | | | | followed? |
| Acknowledgments, Statement of Financial Disclosure, | | | | A Specific Checklist for Original Articles |
| References, Figures and Table Legends, and | | | | 1. Have I written a concise but informative title? |
| Supplementary Information. This structure could vary | | | | 2. Is the author information complete? Has the |
| with the subject area of your research | | | | corresponding author information provided? |
| (Neurosurgery, Molecular Medicine, Economics, | | | | 3. Is the abstract succinct? |
| Astronomy etc.), the type of manuscript (Original | | | | 4. Have you provided important words and phrases in |
| Research Article, Short Communication, Drug Trial, | | | | the study as keywords? |
| Chapter in a book), and the journal/publication | | | | 5. Is the introduction helpful to collate data about the |
| guidelines. | | | | background of the study and its objectives so that it |
| Before submitting a manuscript to a journal, there are | | | | attracts even non-researchers? |
| a few check points that need to be assessed. | | | | 6. Have you provided a thorough materials and |
| A General Checklist for Writing Your Research Paper | | | | methods section so that other researchers could |
| 1. Have the initial objectives and aims of the study | | | | replicate your experiments if needed? |
| been achieved? | | | | 7. Is there a concise but in-depth analysis of the |
| 2. Does your work sufficiently cover all the directions, | | | | findings of the study and results using Tables and |
| as it was written down? | | | | Figures? |
| 3. Does your writing communicate the ideas you | | | | 8. Does the discussion cover all aspects of the study |
| want to talk about? | | | | and puts the findings of the study in perspective? |
| 4. Do you have one clear main point? Review your | | | | 9. Have you listed the limitations of your study? |
| thesis to see if it clearly ties every idea in your work. | | | | 10. Have you included Acknowledgments and details |
| 5. Do you have a structure that allows you to explain | | | | of financial disclosure? |
| your ideas in a clear and consistent manner? | | | | 11. Have you cited the most pertinent citations in the |
| 6. Do your supporting statements fall in line with the | | | | style mentioned in the journal guidelines? |
| kind of arguments you are presenting? | | | | 12. Have you provided concise but informative |
| 7. Have you presented a carefully crafted argument, | | | | legends for figures and tables? |