manuscript writing for research paper

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

How To Write a Manuscript? Step-by-Step Guide to Research Manuscript Writing

Getting published for the first time is a crucial milestone for researchers, especially early career academics. However, the journey starting from how to write a manuscript for a journal to successfully submitting your scientific study and then getting it published can be a long and arduous one. Many find it impossible to break through the editorial and peer review barriers to get their first article published. In fact, the pressure to publish, the high rejection rates of prestigious journals, and the waiting period for a publication decision may often cause researchers to doubt themselves, which negatively impacts research productivity.

While there is no quick and easy way to getting published, there are some proven tips for writing a manuscript that can help get your work the attention it deserves. By ensuring that you’ve accounted for and ticked the checklist for manuscript writing in research you can significantly increase the chances of your manuscript being accepted.

In this step‐by‐step guide, we answer the question – ­­ how to write a manuscript for publication – by presenting some practical tips for the same.

As a first step, it is important that you spend time to identify and evaluate the journal you plan to submit your manuscript to. Data shows that 21% of manuscripts are desk rejected by journals, with another approximately 40% being rejected after peer review 1 , often because editors feel that the submission does not add to the “conversation” in their journal.  Therefore, even before you actually begin the process of manuscript writing, it is a good idea to find out how other similar studies have been presented. This will not only give you an understanding of where your research stands within the wider academic landscape, it will also provide valuable insights on how to present your study when writing a manuscript so that it addresses the gaps in knowledge and stands apart from current published literature.

The next step is to begin the manuscript writing process. This is the part that people find really daunting. Most early career academics feel overwhelmed at this point, and they often look for tips on how to write a manuscript to help them sort through all the research data and present it correctly. Experts suggest following the IMRaD (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) structure that organizes research findings into logical sections and presents ideas and thoughts more coherently for readers.

• The introduction  should state the research problem addressed in your study and highlight its significance in your research domain. A well-crafted introduction is a key element that will compel readers to delve further into the body of your manuscript.
• The materials and methods  section should include what you did and how you conducted your research – the tools, techniques, and instruments used, the data collection methods, and details about the lab environment. Ensuring clarity in this section when writing a manuscript is critical for success.
• The results  section must include complete details of the most significant findings in your study and indicate whether you were able to solve the problem outlined in the introduction. In your manuscript writing process, remember that using tables and figures will help to simplify complex data and results for readers.
• The discussion  section is where you evaluate your results in the context of existing published literature, analyze the implications and meaning of your findings, draw conclusions, and discuss the impact of your research.

You can learn more about the IMRaD structure and master the art of crafting a well-structured manuscript that impresses journal editors and readers in this  in-depth course for researchers , which is available free with a Researcher.Life subscription.

When writing a manuscript and putting the structure together, more often than not, researchers end up spending a lot of time writing the “meat” of the article (i.e., the Methods, Results, and Discussion sections). Consequently, little thought goes into the title and abstract, while keywords get even lesser attention.

The key purpose of the abstract and title is to provide readers with information about whether or not the results of your study are relevant to them. One of my top tips on how to write a manuscript would be to spend some time ensuring that the title is clear and unambiguous, since it is typically the first element a reader encounters. This makes it one of the most important steps to writing a manuscript. Moreover, in addition to attracting potential readers, your research paper’s title is your first chance to make a good impression on reviewers and journal editors.  A descriptive title and abstract will also make your paper stand out for the reader, who will be drawn in if they know exactly what you are presenting. In manuscript writing, remember that the more specific and accurate the title, the more chances of the manuscript being found and cited. Learn the dos and don’ts of drafting an effective title with the help of  this comprehensive handbook for authors , which is also available on the Researcher.Life platform.

The title and the abstract together provide readers with a quick summary of the manuscript and offer a brief glimpse into your research and its scientific implications. The abstract must contain the main premise of your research and the questions you seek to answer. Often, the abstract might be the only part of the manuscript that is read by busy editors, therefore, it should represent a concise version of your complete manuscript. The practice of placing published research papers behind a paywall means many of the database searching software programs will only scan the abstract and titles of the article to determine if the document is relevant to the search keywords the reader is using. Therefore, when writing a manuscript, it is important to write the abstract in a way that ensures both the readers and search engines will be able to find and decide if your research is relevant to their study 2 .

It would not be wrong to say that the title, abstract and keywords operate in a manner comparable to a chain reaction. Once the keywords have helped people find the research paper and an effective title has successfully captured and drawn the readers’ attention, it is up to the abstract of the research paper to further trigger the readers’ interest and maintain their curiosity. This functional advantage alone serves to make an abstract an indispensable component within the research paper format 3 that deserves your complete attention when writing a manuscript.

As you proceed with the steps to writing a manuscript, keep in mind the recommended paper length and mould the structure of your manuscript taking into account the specific guidelines of the journal you are submitting to. Most scientific journals have evolved a distinctive style, structure, and organization. One of the top tips for writing a manuscript would be to use concise sentences and simple straightforward language in a consistent manner throughout the manuscript to convey the details of your research.

Once all the material necessary for submission has been put together, go through the manuscript with a fresh mind so that you can identify errors and gaps. According to Peter Thrower, Editor-in-Chief of  Carbon , one of the top reasons for manuscript rejection is poor language comprehension. Incorrect usage of words, grammar and spelling errors, and flaws in sentence construction are certain to lead to rejection. Authors also often overlook checks to ensure a coherent transition between sections when writing a manuscript. Proofreading is, therefore, a must before submitting your manuscript for publication. Double-check the data and figures and read the manuscript out loud – this helps to weed out possible grammatical errors.

You could request colleagues or fellow researchers to go through your manuscript before submission but, if they are not experts in the same field, they may miss out on errors. In such cases, you may want to consider using professional academic editing services to help you improve sentence structure, grammar, word choice, style, logic and flow to create a polished manuscript that has a 24% greater chance of journal acceptance 4.

Once you are done writing a manuscript as per your target journal, we recommend doing a  comprehensive set of submission readiness checks  to ensure your paper is structurally sound, complete with all the relevant sections, and is devoid of language errors. Most importantly, you need to check for any accidental or unintentional plagiarism – i.e., not correctly citing, paraphrasing or quoting another’s work – which is considered a copyright infringement by the journal, can not only lead to rejection, but also stir up trouble for you and cause irreversible damage to your reputation and career. Also make sure you have all the ethical declarations in place when writing a manuscript, such as conflicts of interest and compliance approvals for studies involving human or animal participants.

To conclude, whenever you find yourself wondering – how to write a manuscript for publication – make sure you check the following points:

• Is your research paper complete, optimized and submission ready?
• Have all authors agreed the content of the submitted manuscript?
• Is your paper aligned with your target journals publication policies?
• Have you created a winning submission package, with all the necessary details?
• Does it include a persuasive cover letter that showcases your research?

Writing a manuscript and getting your work published is an important step in your career as it introduces your research to a wide audience. If you follow our simple manuscript writing guide, you will have the base to create a winning manuscript, with a great chance at acceptance. If you face any hurdles or need support along the way, be sure to explore these  bite-sized learning modules on research writing , designed by researchers, for researchers. And once you have mastered the tips for writing a research paper, and crafting a great submission package, use the comprehensive AI-assisted manuscript evaluation  to avoid errors that lead to desk rejection and optimize your paper for submission to your target journal.

• Helen Eassom, 5 Options to Consider After Article Rejection. The Wiley Network. Retrieved from  https://www.wiley.com/network/researchers/submission-and-navigating-peer-review/5-options-to-consider-after-article-rejection
• Jeremy Dean Chapnick, The abstract and title page. AME Medical Journal, Vol 4, 2019. Retrieved from  http://amj.amegroups.com/article/view/4965/html
• Velany Rodrigues, How to write an effective title and abstract and choose appropriate keywords. Editage Insights, 2013. Retrieved from  https://www.editage.com/insights/how-to-write-an-effective-title-and-abstract-and-choose-appropriate-keywords
• New Editage Report Shows That Pre-Submission Language Editing Can Improve Acceptance Rates of Manuscripts Written by Non-Native English-Speaking Researchers. PR Newswire, 2019. Retrieved from  https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-editage-report-shows-that-pre-submission-language-editing-can-improve-acceptance-rates-of-manuscripts-written-by-non-native-english-speaking-researchers-300833765.html#https%3A%2F%2Fwww.prnewswire.com%3A443

Editage All Access is a subscription-based platform that unifies the best AI tools and services designed to speed up, simplify, and streamline every step of a researcher’s journey. The Editage All Access Pack is a one-of-a-kind subscription that unlocks full access to an AI writing assistant, literature recommender, journal finder, scientific illustration tool, and exclusive discounts on professional publication services from Editage.  

Based on 22+ years of experience in academia, Editage All Access empowers researchers to put their best research forward and move closer to success. Explore our top AI Tools pack, AI Tools + Publication Services pack, or Build Your Own Plan. Find everything a researcher needs to succeed, all in one place –  Get All Access now starting at just $14 a month !    

Related Posts

Join Us for Peer Review Week 2024

How Editage All Access is Boosting Productivity for Academics in India

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER FEATURE
• 28 February 2018
• Correction 16 March 2018

How to write a first-class paper

• Virginia Gewin 0

Virginia Gewin is a freelance writer in Portland, Oregon.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Manuscripts may have a rigidly defined structure, but there’s still room to tell a compelling story — one that clearly communicates the science and is a pleasure to read. Scientist-authors and editors debate the importance and meaning of creativity and offer tips on how to write a top paper.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Nature 555 , 129-130 (2018)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-02404-4

Interviews have been edited for clarity and length.

Updates & Corrections

Correction 16 March 2018 : This article should have made clear that Altmetric is part of Digital Science, a company owned by Holtzbrinck Publishing Group, which is also the majority shareholder in Nature’s publisher, Springer Nature. Nature Research Editing Services is also owned by Springer Nature.

Related Articles

The grassroots organizations continuing the fight for Ukrainian science

Career Feature 11 SEP 24

How a struggling biotech company became a university ‘spin-in’

Career Q&A 10 SEP 24

The human costs of the research-assessment culture

Career Feature 09 SEP 24

My identity was stolen by a predatory conference

Correspondence 17 SEP 24

Publishing nightmare: a researcher’s quest to keep his own work from being plagiarized

News 04 SEP 24

Associate or Full Professor Neuroimager Faculty Position - Mesulam Center (MCNADC)

Associate or Full Professor Tenure Track Faculty Position in Human Neuroimaging.

Chicago, Illinois

Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine - Mesulam Center

Assistant Professor Tenure-Track Faculty Positions

Nashville, Tennessee

Vanderbilt University

Faculty Positions in Biology and Biological Engineering: Caltech, Pasadena, CA, United States

The Division of Biology and Biological Engineering (BBE) at Caltech is seeking new faculty in the area of Molecular Cell Biology.

Pasadena, California

California Institute of Technology (Caltech)

Assistant Professor of Molecular and Cellular Biology

We seek applications for a tenure-track faculty position in the Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology.

Cambridge, Massachusetts

Harvard University - Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology

Husbandry Technician I

Memphis, Tennessee

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital (St. Jude)

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• SpringerLink shop

Writing a journal manuscript

Publishing your results is a vital step in the research lifecycle and in your career as a scientist. Publishing papers is necessary to get your work seen by the scientific community, to exchange your ideas globally and to ensure you receive the recognition for your results. The following information is designed to help you write the best paper possible by providing you with points to consider, from your background reading and study design to structuring your manuscript and figure preparation.

By the end of the tutorial you should know on how to:

• prepare prior to starting your research
• structure your manuscript and what to include in each section
• get the most out of your tables and figures so that they clearly represent your most important results.

You will also have the opportunity to test your learning by completing a quiz at the end.

• Search Search
• CN (Chinese)
• DE (German)
• ES (Spanish)
• FR (Français)
• JP (Japanese)
• Open science
• Booksellers
• Peer Reviewers
• Springer Nature Group ↗
• Publish an article
• Roles and responsibilities
• Signing your contract
• Writing your manuscript
• Submitting your manuscript
• Producing your book
• Promoting your book
• Submit your book idea
• Manuscript guidelines
• Book author services
• Book author benefits
• Publish a book
• Publish conference proceedings

Structuring your manuscript

A well-structured article helps readers find the information it communicates and to easily follow the authors’ methodologies and arguments. To help do this, most articles follow a common pattern and structure called IMRaD. In this section, we’ll discuss what this means, how to do it, and how it will help your manuscript. 

Overview of IMRaD structure

IMRaD refers to the standard structure of the body of research manuscripts (after the Title and Abstract). This consists of: 

• Introduction
• Materials and Methods
• Discussion and Conclusions

Not all journals use these section titles in this order, but most published articles have a structure similar to IMRaD. This standard structure:

• Gives a logical flow to the content
• Makes journal manuscripts consistent and easy to read
• Provides a “map” so that readers can quickly find content of interest in any manuscript
• Reminds authors what content should be included in an article
• Provides all content needed for the work to be replicated and reproduced

Although the sections of the journal manuscript are published in the order: Title, Abstract, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion, this is not the best order for writing the sections of a manuscript. One recommended strategy is to write your manuscript in the following order:

• You can write these first, as you are doing your experiments and collecting the results.
• Write these sections next, once you have had a chance to analyse your results, have a sense of their impact and have decided on the journal you think best suits the work.

Write your Title and Abstract last as these are based on all the other sections. Following this order will help you write a logical and consistent manuscript. Use the different sections of a manuscript to ‘tell a story’ about your research and its implications.

Next : References & Article Types

For further support

We hope that with this tutorial you have a clearer idea of how the publication process works and feel confident in responding to editor and reviewers. Good luck with publishing your work!

If you feel that you would like some further support with writing your paper and understanding the peer review process, Springer Nature offer some services which may be of help.

• Nature Research Editing Service offers high quality  English language and scientific editing. During language editing , Editors will improve the English in your manuscript to ensure the meaning is clear and identify problems that require your review. With Scientific Editing experienced development editors will improve the scientific presentation of your research in your manuscript and cover letter, if supplied. They will also provide you with a report containing feedback on the most important issues identified during the edit, as well as journal recommendations.
• Our affiliates American Journal Experts also provide English language editing* as well as other author services that may support you in preparing your manuscript.
• We provide both online and face-to-face training for researchers on all aspects of the manuscript writing process.

* Please note, using an editing service is neither a requirement nor a guarantee of acceptance for publication. 

Stay up to date

Here to foster information exchange with the library community

Connect with us on LinkedIn and stay up to date with news and development.

• Tools & Services
• Account Development
• Sales and account contacts
• Professional
• Press office
• Locations & Contact

We are a world leading research, educational and professional publisher. Visit our main website for more information.

• © 2024 Springer Nature
• General terms and conditions
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Your Privacy Choices / Manage Cookies
• Accessibility
• Legal notice
• Help us to improve this site, send feedback.

A Guide on How to Write a Manuscript for a Research Paper

This article teaches how to write a manuscript for a research paper and recommended practices to produce a well-written manuscript.

For scientists, publishing a research paper is a huge accomplishment; they typically spend a large amount of time researching the appropriate subject, the right material, and, most importantly, the right place to publish their hard work. To be successful in publishing a research paper, it must be well-written and meet all of the high standards.

Although there is no quick and easy method to get published, there are certain manuscript writing strategies that can help earn the awareness and visibility you need to get it published.

In this Mind The Graph step-by-step tutorial, we give practical directions on how to write a manuscript for a research paper, to increase your research as well as your chances of publishing.

What is the manuscript of a research paper?

A manuscript is a written, typed, or word-processed document submitted to a publisher by the researcher. Researchers meticulously create manuscripts to communicate their unique ideas and fresh findings to both the scientific community and the general public. 

Overall, the manuscript must be outstanding and deeply represent your professional attitude towards work; it must be complete, rationally structured, and accurate. To convey the results to the scientific community while complying with ethical rules, scientific articles must use a specified language and structure.

Furthermore, the standards for title page information, abstract structure, reference style, font size, line spacing, margins, layout, and paragraph style must also be observed for effective publishing. This is a time-consuming and challenging technique, but it is worthwhile in the end.

How to structure a manuscript?

The first step in knowing how to write a manuscript for a research paper is understanding how the structure works. 

Title or heading

A poorly chosen title may deter a potential reader from reading deeper into your manuscript. When an audience comes across your manuscript, the first thing they notice is the title, keep in mind that the title you choose might impact the success of your work.

Abstracts are brief summaries of your paper. The fundamental concept of your research and the issues you intend to answer should be contained within the framework of the abstract. The abstract is a concise summary of the research that should be considered a condensed version of the entire article.

Introduction

The purpose of the research is disclosed in the body of the introduction. Background information is provided to explain why the study was conducted and the research’s development.

Methods and materials

The technical parts of the research have to be thoroughly detailed in this section. Transparency is required in this part of the research. Colleagues will learn about the methodology and materials you used to analyze your research, recreate it, and expand concepts further. 

This is the most important portion of the paper. You should provide your findings and data once the results have been thoroughly discussed. Use an unbiased point of view here; but leave the evaluation for your final piece, the conclusion.

Finally, explain why your findings are meaningful. This section allows you to evaluate your results and reflect on your process. Remember that conclusions are expressed in a succinct way using words rather than figures. The content presented in this section should solely be based on the research conducted.

The reference list contains information that readers may use to find the sources you mentioned in your research. Your reference page is at the end of your piece. Keep in mind that each publication has different submission criteria. For effective reference authentication, journal requirements should be followed.

Steps on how to write a manuscript for a research paper

It is not only about the format while writing a successful manuscript, but also about the correct strategy to stand out above other researchers trying to be published. Consider the following steps to a well-written manuscript:

1. Read the author’s guide

Many journals offer a Guide for Authors kind of document, which is normally printed yearly and is available online. In this Guide for Authors, you will discover thorough information on the journal’s interests and scope, as well as information regarding manuscript types and more in-depth instructions on how to do the right formatting to submit your research.

2. Pay special attention to the methods and materials section

The section on methods and materials is the most important part of the research. It should explain precisely what you observed in the research. This section should normally be less than 1,000 words long. The methods and materials used should be detailed enough that a colleague could reproduce the study.

3. Identify and describe your findings

The second most crucial aspect of your manuscript is the findings. After you’ve stated what you observed (methods and materials), you should go through what you discovered. Make a note to organize your findings such that they make sense without further explanation.

4. The research’s face and body

In this part you need to produce the face and body of your manuscript, so do it carefully and thoroughly. 

Ensure that the title page has all of the information required by the journal. The title page is the public face of your research and must be correctly structured to meet publication requirements. 

Write an introduction that explains why you carried out the research and why anybody should be interested in the results (ask yourself “so what?”). 

Concentrate on creating a clear and accurate reference page. As stated in step 1, you should read the author’s guide for the journal you intend to submit to thoroughly to ensure that your research reference page is correctly structured.

The abstract should be written just after the manuscript is finished. Follow the author’s guide and be sure to keep it under the word limit.

5. Rapid Rejection Criteria double-check

Now that you’ve completed the key aspects of your research, it’s time to double-check everything according to the Rapid Rejection Criteria. The “Rapid Rejection Criteria” are errors that lead to an instantaneous rejection. The criteria are:

• The answered question was not interesting enough
• The question has been satisfactorily answered before
• Wrong hypothesis
• The method cannot address the hypothesis
• Research is underpowered
• Contradictory manuscript
• The conclusion doesn’t support the data

Rewrite your manuscript now that you’ve finished it. Make yourself your fiercest critic. Consider reading the document loudly to yourself, keeping an ear out for any abrupt breaks in the logical flow or incorrect claims.

Your Creations, Ready within Minutes!

Aside from a step-by-step guide to writing a decent manuscript for your research, Mind The Graph includes a specialized tool for creating and providing templates for infographics that may maximize the potential and worth of your research. Check the website for more information. 

Subscribe to our newsletter

Exclusive high quality content about effective visual communication in science.

Sign Up for Free

Try the best infographic maker and promote your research with scientifically-accurate beautiful figures

no credit card required

About Jessica Abbadia

Jessica Abbadia is a lawyer that has been working in Digital Marketing since 2020, improving organic performance for apps and websites in various regions through ASO and SEO. Currently developing scientific and intellectual knowledge for the community's benefit. Jessica is an animal rights activist who enjoys reading and drinking strong coffee.

Content tags

How to Write and Publish a Research Paper for a Peer-Reviewed Journal

• Open access
• Published: 30 April 2020
• Volume 36 , pages 909–913, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Clara Busse   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0178-1000 1 &
• Ella August   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5151-1036 1 , 2  

285k Accesses

17 Citations

709 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Communicating research findings is an essential step in the research process. Often, peer-reviewed journals are the forum for such communication, yet many researchers are never taught how to write a publishable scientific paper. In this article, we explain the basic structure of a scientific paper and describe the information that should be included in each section. We also identify common pitfalls for each section and recommend strategies to avoid them. Further, we give advice about target journal selection and authorship. In the online resource 1 , we provide an example of a high-quality scientific paper, with annotations identifying the elements we describe in this article.

Similar content being viewed by others

How to Choose the Right Journal

The Point Is…to Publish?

Writing and publishing a scientific paper

Explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Writing a scientific paper is an important component of the research process, yet researchers often receive little formal training in scientific writing. This is especially true in low-resource settings. In this article, we explain why choosing a target journal is important, give advice about authorship, provide a basic structure for writing each section of a scientific paper, and describe common pitfalls and recommendations for each section. In the online resource 1 , we also include an annotated journal article that identifies the key elements and writing approaches that we detail here. Before you begin your research, make sure you have ethical clearance from all relevant ethical review boards.

Select a Target Journal Early in the Writing Process

We recommend that you select a “target journal” early in the writing process; a “target journal” is the journal to which you plan to submit your paper. Each journal has a set of core readers and you should tailor your writing to this readership. For example, if you plan to submit a manuscript about vaping during pregnancy to a pregnancy-focused journal, you will need to explain what vaping is because readers of this journal may not have a background in this topic. However, if you were to submit that same article to a tobacco journal, you would not need to provide as much background information about vaping.

Information about a journal’s core readership can be found on its website, usually in a section called “About this journal” or something similar. For example, the Journal of Cancer Education presents such information on the “Aims and Scope” page of its website, which can be found here: https://www.springer.com/journal/13187/aims-and-scope .

Peer reviewer guidelines from your target journal are an additional resource that can help you tailor your writing to the journal and provide additional advice about crafting an effective article [ 1 ]. These are not always available, but it is worth a quick web search to find out.

Identify Author Roles Early in the Process

Early in the writing process, identify authors, determine the order of authors, and discuss the responsibilities of each author. Standard author responsibilities have been identified by The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) [ 2 ]. To set clear expectations about each team member’s responsibilities and prevent errors in communication, we also suggest outlining more detailed roles, such as who will draft each section of the manuscript, write the abstract, submit the paper electronically, serve as corresponding author, and write the cover letter. It is best to formalize this agreement in writing after discussing it, circulating the document to the author team for approval. We suggest creating a title page on which all authors are listed in the agreed-upon order. It may be necessary to adjust authorship roles and order during the development of the paper. If a new author order is agreed upon, be sure to update the title page in the manuscript draft.

In the case where multiple papers will result from a single study, authors should discuss who will author each paper. Additionally, authors should agree on a deadline for each paper and the lead author should take responsibility for producing an initial draft by this deadline.

Structure of the Introduction Section

The introduction section should be approximately three to five paragraphs in length. Look at examples from your target journal to decide the appropriate length. This section should include the elements shown in Fig.  1 . Begin with a general context, narrowing to the specific focus of the paper. Include five main elements: why your research is important, what is already known about the topic, the “gap” or what is not yet known about the topic, why it is important to learn the new information that your research adds, and the specific research aim(s) that your paper addresses. Your research aim should address the gap you identified. Be sure to add enough background information to enable readers to understand your study. Table 1 provides common introduction section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

The main elements of the introduction section of an original research article. Often, the elements overlap

Methods Section

The purpose of the methods section is twofold: to explain how the study was done in enough detail to enable its replication and to provide enough contextual detail to enable readers to understand and interpret the results. In general, the essential elements of a methods section are the following: a description of the setting and participants, the study design and timing, the recruitment and sampling, the data collection process, the dataset, the dependent and independent variables, the covariates, the analytic approach for each research objective, and the ethical approval. The hallmark of an exemplary methods section is the justification of why each method was used. Table 2 provides common methods section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

Results Section

The focus of the results section should be associations, or lack thereof, rather than statistical tests. Two considerations should guide your writing here. First, the results should present answers to each part of the research aim. Second, return to the methods section to ensure that the analysis and variables for each result have been explained.

Begin the results section by describing the number of participants in the final sample and details such as the number who were approached to participate, the proportion who were eligible and who enrolled, and the number of participants who dropped out. The next part of the results should describe the participant characteristics. After that, you may organize your results by the aim or by putting the most exciting results first. Do not forget to report your non-significant associations. These are still findings.

Tables and figures capture the reader’s attention and efficiently communicate your main findings [ 3 ]. Each table and figure should have a clear message and should complement, rather than repeat, the text. Tables and figures should communicate all salient details necessary for a reader to understand the findings without consulting the text. Include information on comparisons and tests, as well as information about the sample and timing of the study in the title, legend, or in a footnote. Note that figures are often more visually interesting than tables, so if it is feasible to make a figure, make a figure. To avoid confusing the reader, either avoid abbreviations in tables and figures, or define them in a footnote. Note that there should not be citations in the results section and you should not interpret results here. Table 3 provides common results section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

Discussion Section

Opposite the introduction section, the discussion should take the form of a right-side-up triangle beginning with interpretation of your results and moving to general implications (Fig.  2 ). This section typically begins with a restatement of the main findings, which can usually be accomplished with a few carefully-crafted sentences.

Major elements of the discussion section of an original research article. Often, the elements overlap

Next, interpret the meaning or explain the significance of your results, lifting the reader’s gaze from the study’s specific findings to more general applications. Then, compare these study findings with other research. Are these findings in agreement or disagreement with those from other studies? Does this study impart additional nuance to well-accepted theories? Situate your findings within the broader context of scientific literature, then explain the pathways or mechanisms that might give rise to, or explain, the results.

Journals vary in their approach to strengths and limitations sections: some are embedded paragraphs within the discussion section, while some mandate separate section headings. Keep in mind that every study has strengths and limitations. Candidly reporting yours helps readers to correctly interpret your research findings.

The next element of the discussion is a summary of the potential impacts and applications of the research. Should these results be used to optimally design an intervention? Does the work have implications for clinical protocols or public policy? These considerations will help the reader to further grasp the possible impacts of the presented work.

Finally, the discussion should conclude with specific suggestions for future work. Here, you have an opportunity to illuminate specific gaps in the literature that compel further study. Avoid the phrase “future research is necessary” because the recommendation is too general to be helpful to readers. Instead, provide substantive and specific recommendations for future studies. Table 4 provides common discussion section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

Follow the Journal’s Author Guidelines

After you select a target journal, identify the journal’s author guidelines to guide the formatting of your manuscript and references. Author guidelines will often (but not always) include instructions for titles, cover letters, and other components of a manuscript submission. Read the guidelines carefully. If you do not follow the guidelines, your article will be sent back to you.

Finally, do not submit your paper to more than one journal at a time. Even if this is not explicitly stated in the author guidelines of your target journal, it is considered inappropriate and unprofessional.

Your title should invite readers to continue reading beyond the first page [ 4 , 5 ]. It should be informative and interesting. Consider describing the independent and dependent variables, the population and setting, the study design, the timing, and even the main result in your title. Because the focus of the paper can change as you write and revise, we recommend you wait until you have finished writing your paper before composing the title.

Be sure that the title is useful for potential readers searching for your topic. The keywords you select should complement those in your title to maximize the likelihood that a researcher will find your paper through a database search. Avoid using abbreviations in your title unless they are very well known, such as SNP, because it is more likely that someone will use a complete word rather than an abbreviation as a search term to help readers find your paper.

After you have written a complete draft, use the checklist (Fig. 3 ) below to guide your revisions and editing. Additional resources are available on writing the abstract and citing references [ 5 ]. When you feel that your work is ready, ask a trusted colleague or two to read the work and provide informal feedback. The box below provides a checklist that summarizes the key points offered in this article.

Checklist for manuscript quality

Data Availability

Michalek AM (2014) Down the rabbit hole…advice to reviewers. J Cancer Educ 29:4–5

Article   Google Scholar  

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Defining the role of authors and contributors: who is an author? http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authosrs-and-contributors.html . Accessed 15 January, 2020

Vetto JT (2014) Short and sweet: a short course on concise medical writing. J Cancer Educ 29(1):194–195

Brett M, Kording K (2017) Ten simple rules for structuring papers. PLoS ComputBiol. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005619

Lang TA (2017) Writing a better research article. J Public Health Emerg. https://doi.org/10.21037/jphe.2017.11.06

Download references

Acknowledgments

Ella August is grateful to the Sustainable Sciences Institute for mentoring her in training researchers on writing and publishing their research.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Maternal and Child Health, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, 135 Dauer Dr, 27599, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

Clara Busse & Ella August

Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan School of Public Health, 1415 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-2029, USA

Ella August

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ella August .

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interests.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

(PDF 362 kb)

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Busse, C., August, E. How to Write and Publish a Research Paper for a Peer-Reviewed Journal. J Canc Educ 36 , 909–913 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-020-01751-z

Download citation

Published : 30 April 2020

Issue Date : October 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-020-01751-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Manuscripts
• Scientific writing
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Writing for research

Research preparation is done. the next stage is to start writing "writing for research" is the second stage of your research journey. .

Learn the fundamentals of manuscript preparation and how to write them, including how to structure your article and write a great abstract. 

Complete the topics within "Writing for research" and increase your chances of getting published.

Modules in writing for research.

Generative AI in the Publishing Community

Author policies on the use of Generative AI

Generative AI: Q&A

Generative AI: New policies, opportunities, and risks

The why and how of data visualization

Data visualization and choosing the right plot

Three contexts for data visualisation

The evolution of data visualization

From article to art: Creating visual abstracts - Parts 1 & 2: A Guide to Visual Abstracts

From article to art: Creating visual abstracts - Part 3: Designing

From article to art: creating visual abstracts - part 4: sketching the appropriate visual elements.

Structuring your article correctly

Guide to reference managers: How to effectively manage your references

How to prepare your manuscript

How to write an abstract and improve your article

How to prepare a proposal for a review article

Writing a persuasive cover letter for your manuscript

How to turn your thesis into an article

5 Diseases ailing research – and how to cure them

Using proper manuscript language

10 tips for writing a truly terrible journal article

How to write and review a methods article

How to design effective figures for review articles

How to write for an interdisciplinary audience

An editor’s guide to writing a review article

How to write case reports

Systematic reviews 101

Beginners’ guide to writing a manuscript in LaTeX

•   [email protected]

Writing and Presenting Guide

Writing papers.

Not sure how to start? The questions and processes below can help.

• Are you arguing a point?
• Are you debating two sides of an issue?
• Read all the assigned course readings.
• Read the assignment rubric.
• Think about what you already know about this topic and brainstorm a few more ideas.
• Ask yourself who, what, where, when, why, and how questions about your topic.
• Use databases provided by the Shapiro Library to find sources.
• Decide the main point and supporting points you want to convey or prove in your paper.
• Find evidence (facts, quotes, details, or expert opinions) to support your main points.
• Organize your points into a structure that makes sense.
• Start writing. Don’t worry about making it perfect. Just get your thoughts on paper.
• Write about your topic for a set amount of time.
• Do not worry if it makes any sense or not, just start writing.
• Use techniques such as brainstorming and mind mapping to organize your thoughts.
• Read what you have written and revise your paper.

Need help writing a paper?

Check out these resources:

Academic Support Video

Helpful Books from the Library

Helpful Web Resources

• Planning a Paper (Infobase) This link opens in a new window
• << Previous: Writing an Essay
• Next: Writing Literature Reviews >>

• Skip to Guides Search
• Skip to breadcrumb
• Skip to main content
• Skip to footer
• Skip to chat link
• Report accessibility issues and get help
• Go to Penn Libraries Home
• Go to Franklin catalog

Critical Writing Seminar: Fairness and Machine Learning 2024-25: Researching the White Paper

• Getting started
• News and Opinion Sites
• Academic Sources
• Grey Literature
• Substantive News Sources
• What to Do When You Are Stuck
• Understanding a citation
• Examples of Quotation
• Examples of Paraphrase
• Chicago Manual of Style: Citing Images
• Researching the Op-Ed
• Researching Prospective Employers
• Resume Resources
• Cover Letter Resources

Research the White Paper

Researching the white paper:.

The process of researching and composing a white paper shares some similarities with the kind of research and writing one does for a high school or college research paper. What’s important for writers of white papers to grasp, however, is how much this genre differs from a research paper.  First, the author of a white paper already recognizes that there is a problem to be solved, a decision to be made, and the job of the author is to provide readers with substantive information to help them make some kind of decision--which may include a decision to do more research because major gaps remain. 

Thus, a white paper author would not “brainstorm” a topic. Instead, the white paper author would get busy figuring out how the problem is defined by those who are experiencing it as a problem. Typically that research begins in popular culture--social media, surveys, interviews, newspapers. Once the author has a handle on how the problem is being defined and experienced, its history and its impact, what people in the trenches believe might be the best or worst ways of addressing it, the author then will turn to academic scholarship as well as “grey” literature (more about that later).  Unlike a school research paper, the author does not set out to argue for or against a particular position, and then devote the majority of effort to finding sources to support the selected position.  Instead, the author sets out in good faith to do as much fact-finding as possible, and thus research is likely to present multiple, conflicting, and overlapping perspectives. When people research out of a genuine desire to understand and solve a problem, they listen to every source that may offer helpful information. They will thus have to do much more analysis, synthesis, and sorting of that information, which will often not fall neatly into a “pro” or “con” camp:  Solution A may, for example, solve one part of the problem but exacerbate another part of the problem. Solution C may sound like what everyone wants, but what if it’s built on a set of data that have been criticized by another reliable source?  And so it goes. 

For example, if you are trying to write a white paper on the opioid crisis, you may focus on the value of  providing free, sterilized needles--which do indeed reduce disease, and also provide an opportunity for the health care provider distributing them to offer addiction treatment to the user. However, the free needles are sometimes discarded on the ground, posing a danger to others; or they may be shared; or they may encourage more drug usage. All of those things can be true at once; a reader will want to know about all of these considerations in order to make an informed decision. That is the challenging job of the white paper author.     
 The research you do for your white paper will require that you identify a specific problem, seek popular culture sources to help define the problem, its history, its significance and impact for people affected by it.  You will then delve into academic and grey literature to learn about the way scholars and others with professional expertise answer these same questions. In this way, you will create creating a layered, complex portrait that provides readers with a substantive exploration useful for deliberating and decision-making. You will also likely need to find or create images, including tables, figures, illustrations or photographs, and you will document all of your sources. 

Slavic and East European Studies Librarian

Connect to a Librarian Live Chat or "Ask a Question"

• Librarians staff live chat from 9-5 Monday through Friday . You can also text to chat: 215-543-7674
• You can submit a question 24 hours a day and we aim to respond within 24 hours 
• You can click the "Schedule Appointment" button above in librarian's profile box (to the left), to schedule a consultation with her in person or by video conference.  
• You can also make an appointment with a  Librarian by subject specialization . 
• Connect by email with a subject librarian

Find more easy contacts at our Quick Start Guide

• Next: Getting started >>
• Last Updated: Sep 16, 2024 4:04 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.upenn.edu/cwp_fairness

Quick Links

Research manuscript submissions.

• Special/Invited Session Proposals
• Panels Call for Proposals
• Tutorials Call for Proposals
• Workshop Call for Proposals
• Back-End Design Track Presentation Submissions
• Front-End Design Track Presentation Submissions
• IP Track Presentation Submissions
• Systems and Software Track Presentation Submissions
• DAC Pavilion Call for Proposals
• Exhibitor Forum Call for Proposals
• Late Breaking Results
• Research Paper Submission Categories

CONTACT INFORMATION

David Pan Technical Program Committee Chair Email

Chia-Lin Yang Technical Program Committee Chair Email

SUBMISSION SITE QUESTIONS

Wanli Chang Submission/Publications Chair Email

Submission Format  | Timeline | Rules | Duplicate Submissions | Disclosure Process | Conflict of Interest | Frequently Asked Questions | Review and Selection | Copyright Information

The Design Automation Conference (DAC) is the premier event to showcase cutting-edge research achievements in the design and design automation of electronic circuits and systems. In addition to a broad range of topics within the domains -- Design, EDA, Embedded Systems & Software (ESS), Artificial Intelligence (AI), Security as well as Autonomous Systems and IP -- the 2024 edition of DAC is expecting particular interest in the following: 

• SoC, Heterogeneous & Reconfigurable Architectures
• AI/ML Architecture Design
• Near-Memory & In-Memory Computing
• Quantum Computing,
• Design Methodologies for System-on-Chip and 3D/2.5D System-in Package
• Time-Critical and Low Power System, Embedded & Cross-Layer 
• Design Verification and Validation

Acceptance rates for manuscript publication are uniform across all topic areas and they have been hovering between 20%-25% for the past several years.

Submission Format

Stage One: Abstract Submission

• A title, abstract (approximately 100 words), and a list of all co-authors must be submitted by November 13, 2023 (5:00pm PT). You may also submit the manuscript at this time.
• A submitter must enter the names, affiliations, cities, states, countries and email addresses of ALL the co-authors. The addition of new co-authors or re-ordering of authors will not be permitted after November 13.
• Title may not be changed after the abstract submission deadline of November 13.
• Authors will be asked to report Conflicts of Interest with TPC members.

Stage Two: Manuscript Submission

• The paper itself (up to 6 pages) is due by November 20, 2023 (5:00pm PT). Each submitted manuscript must discuss original work that has not been previously published in other indexed research databases.
• Authors are responsible for ensuring that their manuscript meets the submission guidelines outlined in the tabs at the top of this page. There will be no opportunity for re-submission to correct any issues.
• Your manuscript will be reviewed as a finished manuscript. Preliminary submissions will be at a disadvantage.

|back to top|

Submission Timeline

• September 29, 2023: Submission Opens
• November 13, 2023, 5pm PT: Abstract Deadline
• November 20, 2023, 5pm PT: Manuscript Deadline
• February 26, 2024: Accept/Reject Notifications Sent
• March 13, 2024: Confirmation Forms Due
• April 10, 2024: Proceedings Manuscript Deadline
• April 10, 2024: Registration Deadline
• April 27, 2024: Draft Slides Due for Subcommittee Chair Review
• May 7, 2024: Slide Feedback Provided
• May 21, 2024: Final Slides and Presentation Recording Due

Submission Rules

• DO NOT identify the author(s) by their name(s) or affiliation(s) anywhere on the manuscript or abstract, with all references to the author(s)' own previous work or affiliations in the bibliographic citations being in the third person. Avoid the use of “omitted for blind review” in the bibliography section. Make sure the PDF metadata does not contain the author information.
• The abstract of approximately 100 words must clearly state the significant contribution, impact, and results of the manuscript.
• The manuscript must be within 6 pages, double-columned, 9 or 10-pt font, in PDF format only, be a readable file and follow the  ACM style template . The length and content of the submitted version and that of the final version (if accepted) should not be significantly different.
• A submitter is required to check the conflicts of interests (COI) field and the duplicate submission field. See the "Conflict of Interest" section and the "Duplicate Submission" section for further information

An author of each accepted submission is required to:

• Produce a paper for the official conference proceedings.
• Sign and submit a copyright form.
• All accepted presentations are expected to submit a video of their presentation in advance of the event. This does not replace participation in the event.

In addition:

• One co-author on the paper is required to pay the full conference Speaker Registration Fee.
• The speaker must present the paper at the conference. If anyone other than a co-author of the paper presents the paper at the conference, the paper will be removed from the proceedings. 

Following ACM's policy on authorship, anyone listed as Author on a paper must meet all the following criteria:

• They have made substantial intellectual contributions to some components of the original work described in the paper; and
• They have participated in drafting and/or revision of the paper; and
• They are aware that the paper has been submitted for publication; and
• They agree to be held accountable for any issues relating to correctness or integrity of the work

Duplicate Submissions

DAC adheres to strict rules regarding duplicate submissions. Submissions must be clearly novel and distinct with respect to other submissions to DAC 2024, concurrent submissions to other conferences and previously published work.

• All closely related work should be properly referenced. If such related work is authored by one of the co-author(s) of the manuscript in submission, it should be referenced as if it were written by others.
• Any extended version of the submitted manuscript should not be submitted or under review before the formal notification of the DAC ‘s review decision.
• If any co-author has any paper that may be perceived as having overlapping contributions and that is simultaneously under review by another venue, such papers must be disclosed in the submission process.

The DAC publication policy does allow for papers published on arXiv to be submitted to DAC. Note, however, that the authors are expected to follow all reasonable efforts to ensure that the DAC submission is compliant with the double-blind review process.

Submissions which fail to follow the above guidelines will be automatically rejected. In serious cases, the authors’ names will be reported to ACM and kept in records, as well as sent to the Technical Chair or the Editor of the venue where the duplicate manuscript was submitted; the authors may be banned from publishing at future DAC conferences.

Disclosure Process for Unpublished Work

When submitting to DAC, authors face a dilemma. DAC has a blind review process in which the author’s identity remains anonymous. However, the submission rules compel the authors to cite relevant publications that have already been accepted or are under review by another conference (such as ICCAD, DATE, ASP-DAC, etc.). Disclosing these papers under the citation list reveals the authors’ identities. To circumvent this issue, DAC has implemented a disclosure process.

When submitting a paper, the authors are asked to list each relevant paper that has not yet been published and include the corresponding pdf of the paper. The TPC Chair will be able to check for self-plagiarism and relevance without revealing the author identities to the reviewers. Failure to disclose such papers will be considered as omission of closely related work and subject to the same penalties outlined in the Duplicate Submissions, as discussed in the section.

Conflict of Interest

To further strengthen the review process, each submitter is asked to identify any Technical Program Committee (TPC) members with whom s/he has conflict of interests (COI). The TPC list is available below. An author has a conflict with a member of the Technical Program Committee if one or more of the situations below holds:

• Advisor-advisee relation
• Co-authors of a paper (published and/or under review) in the last 24 months
• Author and TPC member are from the same institution
• Co-PIs of a grant in the last 2 years
• Close personal or family relationship

The submitter should indicate the COIs of all authors with members of the Technical Program Committee upon submission. Failure to do so may lead to automatic rejection of the submission. If the submitter marks members of the Technical Program Committee as COI where there is in fact no COI, that may also lead to automatic rejection.

For a list with detailed descriptions, visit the Research Paper Submissions Categories page.

Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The artificial intelligence (AI) track will highlight advances in the field with algorithms for the development of machine learning model, AI inspired models of computation, approximate computing, and security for AI and ML.

• AI1. ML Algorithms
• AI2. AI/ML Application and Infrastructure
• AI3. AI/ML Security/Privacy

Autonomous Systems

Modern autonomous systems are growing at an increasingly rapid pace. These complex systems are developed to make our experiences safer, more energy-efficient and enjoyable.

• AS1. Autonomous Systems (Automotive, Robotics, Drones)

A cross-domain interaction of researchers, designers and practitioners cover design for electronic systems and electronic design automation in both the Research Track and Engineering Tracks.

• DES1. Design of Cyber-physical Systems and IoT
• DES2. SoC, Heterogeneous, and Reconfigurable Architectures
• DES3A. In-memory and Near-memory Computing Circuits
• DES3B. In-memory and Near-memory Computing Architectures, Applications and Systems
• DES4. AI/ML Architecture Design
• DES5. AI/ML System and Platform Design
• DES6. Emerging Models of Computation
• DES7. AL/ML, Digital, and Analog Circuits
• DES8. Emerging Device and Interconnect Technologies
• DES9. Quantum Computing

Electronic Design Automation (EDA)

For more than five decades DAC has focused on EDA and today it is still important with the growing complexities and scaling of semiconductor devices in circuits and systems.

• EDA1. Design Methodologies for System-on-Chip and 3D/2.5D System-in Package
• EDA2. Design Verification and Validation
• EDA3. Timing and Power Analysis and Optimization
• EDA4. RTL/Logic Level and High-level Synthesis
• EDA5. Analog CAD, Simulation, Verification and Test
• EDA6. Physical Design and Verification
• EDA7. Design for Manufacturability and Reliability
• EDA8. Test, Validation and Silicon Lifecycle Management

Embedded Systems & Software (ESS)

The Embedded Systems & Software (ESS) track provides a forum to discuss the challenges of embedded design. The sessions present an opportunity to exchange ideas/roadmaps for the future of this expanding area.

• ESS1. Embedded Software
• ESS2. Embedded System Design Tools and Methodologies
• ESS3. Embedded Memory and Storage Systems
• ESS4. Time-Critical and Fault Tolerant System Design

The security of systems is essential in today’s electronics. Secure, trustworthy SW and HW components, platforms and supply chains are vital to all domains including financial, healthcare, transportation, and energy..

• SEC1. Hardware Security: Primitives, Architecture, Design & Test
• SEC2. Hardware Security: Attack and Defense
• SEC3. Embedded and Cross-Layer Security

Frequently Asked Questions

How should I submit a research manuscript?

Authors are asked to submit their work in two stages. In stage one (Abstraction Submission), a title, abstract, and a list of all co-authors must be submitted via the DAC web-submission site. In stage two (Manuscript Submission), the manuscript itself is submitted. Authors are responsible for ensuring that their manuscript submission meets all guidelines, and that the PDF is readable. To ensure fairness for all submitters, there will be no grace periods to fix problematic submissions.

The manuscript should stand on its own, with references in the last page of the 6-pages manuscript. The manuscript must be within 6 pages, double-columned, 9 or 10-pt font, in PDF format only, be a readable file and follow the  ACM style template . The length and content of the submitted version and that of the final version (if accepted) should not be significantly different. There will be no chance of resubmitting to correct any issues.

How should I submit the conflict of interest (COI) information?

Submitters should report COIs of all co-authors with respect to members of the Technical Program Committee upon submission. However, it is recommended that submitters work on marking COIs as soon as they submit their manuscript's abstract, since this task may require some time, which is often scarce in the final sprint towards the completion of a manuscript's submission. Modifications to marked COIs can be made any time prior to the manuscript deadline.

Authors are asked to mark all the TPC members who have COIs with at least one of the authors at the time of abstract registration. Do not mark any members of the Technical Program Committee as COI where the is in fact COI.

What if authors failed to identify TPC members with COI?

DAC assumes that authors have no additional COIs with TPC members, beside those that have been declared at the time of manuscript submission. If a manuscript is found to have failed in identifying a  COI, during or after the paper selection process, the submitted manuscript will be automatically rejected. Same hold if members of the Technical Program Committee are marked as COI where there is in fact no COI.

What is the DAC research manuscript timeline?

DAC will follow the timeline below in processing, selecting and publishing research manuscripts: 

• September 29 to November 20, 2023: Research submission site is OPEN.
• November 13, 2023: Research abstract submissions are DUE by 5:00pm PT 
• November 20, 2023: Research final manuscript submissions are DUE by 5:00pm PT 
• February 26, 2024: Accept/reject notices and confirmation forms will be emailed to authors.
• March 13, 2024: Accepted papers must submit confirmation forms.
• March 31, 2024: The technical program will be live on the DAC website.
• April 10, 2024: Accepted papers must submit copyright forms .
• April 10, 2024: Final manuscript is DUE to the proceedings publisher by 5:00pm PT.
• April 10, 2024: Speaker registration deadline. One author from each manuscript is required to register at the speaker registration rate.
• April 27, 2024: Speaker bio and draft slides due for review by subcommittee chairs.
• May 7, 2024: Subcommittee chairs will provide feedback to speakers regarding their draft slides.
• May 21, 2024: Final presentation slides and video presentations are due.
• June 23, 2024: The Design Automation Conference begins! 

Which category should I select when I submit my manuscript?

The Call for Contributions lists several categories; please select the most appropriate primary topic when submitting your abstract. Authors of submissions that cover cross-cutting topics should select a category that is closest to the essential contribution of the submission. Submissions will be asked to select a broad category (ex. “EDA1. System-on-chip and HW/SW Codesign”). A complete list of available categories and topic areas can be found in the CFP.  Please note that there are separate categories for electronic design automation topics, embedded systems and software topics, autonomous electronic design, design and system security, and electronic design topics.

If my work is mainly about design, should I submit it to the regular research track or the Engineering Tracks?

The Research track at DAC 2024 will include a DESIGN (DES) focus to feature high-quality contents on design research, design practices, and design automation for cross-cutting topics.

If you think that your work makes a significant contribution to any of the design related topics, you should consider writing a complete 6-page research manuscript and submit it to the regular research track. On the other hand, if your work is more of a design practice using EDA tools or if you cannot meet the research manuscript deadline, you can consider submitting your work to the Engineering Tracks, which do not require a manuscript and entail no publication.

Six pages only, or is additional 4-page supplemental material allowed?

All submissions to the Research Track are subject to the six-page limit. No additional supplemental material is allowed.

How do I avoid referencing my own work to ensure the integrity of the blind review process?

To satisfy the criteria for a blind review process, the Call for Contributions states that any references to the author(s) own previous work or affiliations in the bibliographic citations must be in the third person. For the blind review process, DO NOT LIST THE NAMES OR AFFILIATIONS OF ANY OF THE AUTHORS ANYWHERE ON THE MANUSCRIPT, except in the references section (if citation to prior work is required).

Example: A. and B. presented a method for listing self-referential citations in [5].


[5] A. A and B. B, How to write a research DAC paper, 2021.

DO NOT use “omitted for blind review” to cite authors’ own papers. Describe all related papers published by you as if they were written by others.

Citation of authors’ unpublished papers is not allowed, including citation of potential double and/or simultaneous submissions. If this situation arises, submitters must follow the disclosure requirements to disclose their (or their co-authors) related work that is under review or accepted for publication.

I submitted a longer version of my manuscript to another conference/journal. Can I still submit it to DAC?

DAC adheres to strict rules regarding double and/or simultaneous submissions. No new technical content should be under review during any time overlapping with DAC's selection and publication of manuscripts. In general, an extended version of the conference paper should be submitted to a journal after the first day of the conference. Your submissions must be clearly distinct from any other submissions under review. Use your judgment. If in doubt, consult with a more senior colleague. Double submissions are unethical, and a serious issue within the ACM & IEEE communities.

Can a paper that has been uploaded to *arXiv* be submitted to DAC?

How do I disclose a paper under review or an accepted but not published paper?

When submitting a paper, the authors are asked to list all potentially relevant papers that have not yet been published and provide an electronic copy (in pdf format) of those papers. The TPC Chair will be able to check for self-plagiarism and relevance without revealing author identities to the reviewers. Failure to disclose such papers will be considered as omission of closely related work and subject to the same penalties outlined in the "Duplicate Submissions" section.

What makes a good DAC manuscript?

• DAC Electronic Design Automation (EDA) research manuscripts have at their core novel algorithms or novel algorithm implementations for important problems facing leading edge electronic design automation. These may address the problem at any level of abstraction (from high-level blocks down to the bare transistor). They can cover both design implementation (for example, physical layout or logic synthesis) and design analysis (for example, signal integrity analysis, rule checking, functional verification, and circuit simulation).
• DAC Embedded Systems and Software (ESS) research manuscripts cover novel advances in embedded systems software and hardware, from the very highest levels of system specification (e.g., domain-specific languages and model based design) to hardware/software implementations of embedded systems, their associated software design tools and architectural platforms, as well as validation, verification, and reliability. ESS topics will also cover modeling, optimization, and exploration of multiple embedded system constraints (e.g., reliability, power, security). ESS case studies, platforms and design methodologies are also an integral part of these topics.
• DAC Design (DES) research manuscripts feature high-quality contributions on design research, design practices, and design automation for cross-cutting topics, ranging from systems and architectures, particularly specialized solutions to embedded systems, storage and memory structures.
• DAC Artificial Intelligence (AI)  research manuscripts features advances in the field of AI / Machine Learning (ML) with a focus on design automation and designs at the cross section between AI/ML algorithms/applications and hardware. The scope includes but not limited to novel AI/ML algorithms, applications, infrastructures, and how to address growing security/privacy concerns of AI/ML.
• DAC Security (SEC) research manuscripts span topics relating to embedded systems, cross-layer and hardware security, applied to all the layers of the hardware stack, from devices to architectures. The nature of the manuscripts range from attacks, to protection mechanisms and metrics.
• Finally, DAC Autonomous electronic design (AS) research manuscripts discuss autonomous system design tools and methodologies.

Can I submit as a Work-in-Progress (WIP) presentation if my paper is not accepted as a research manuscript?

If the TPC subcommittee does not accept your manuscript as a research manuscript at DAC, they will also determine if your submission meets the requirements for a WIP presentation and invite WIP-eligible manuscripts to present during a specific poster session at DAC. Note that WIP presentations papers are not published in the DAC proceedings. Thus, in this situation, you do not need to re-submit your manuscript to the WIP submission site.

You may also submit other distinct works directly through the LBR submission site. Please see the Late Breaking Results section in the Call for Contributions for more details.

  I still have some questions. Who do I contact?

For additional information, please contact:

• David Pan , 61st DAC Technical Program Chair
• Chia-Lin Yang , 61st DAC Technical Program Co-Chair

Review and Selection Process

The DAC Technical Program Committee (TPC) determines the selection of research manuscripts to be included in the DAC program, as well as how they are integrated into technical sessions within the conference schedule. The Technical Program Committee is organized into several subcommittees, which focus on the various topic areas that are relevant to the conference. These are reasonably close, but not necessarily identical to the categories in the call for contributions. Manuscripts which are assigned by authors to unfitting categories may be reassigned by the program committee chair and subcommittee chairs to a subcommittee best able to review them.

DAC strives to ensure that there are no conflicts of interest (COI) between authors and reviewers so to provide a review process that is fair to all the authors. Submitters should report conflict of interests for all co-authors with members of the Technical Program Committee by the manuscript submission deadline, as discussed in the “Conflict of Interests” tab. The Technical Program Committee Chair may reassign manuscripts to different subcommittees to resolve conflicts of interest with Technical Program Committee members.

DAC will also compare each submission against a vast database to identify manuscripts which have significant similarity to previously published works. Submissions identified as plagiarized during this process will be rejected. Furthermore, the names of all the authors of the submission will be reported to IEEE and ACM, as well as the TPC Chair or the Editor-in-Chief of the venue where the duplicate was submitted. Further information on duplicate submissions is provided under the "Duplicate Submissions" tab at the top of this page.

Then DAC manuscripts undergo a double-blind review process; i.e., the identity of authors and reviewers is only known to the Technical Program Committee (TPC) Chair. Each subcommittee will select the best manuscripts submitted. The selectivity is influenced by the overall numbers of submissions, the capacity of the DAC schedule, and the number of manuscripts in each area.

The Technical Program Committee and its subcommittees will take into account the following aspects in selecting manuscripts:

• Quality of the technical contribution (design, solution, methodology) described in the manuscript.
• Originality of the concepts used and described. Advances over previous approaches should be reflected in the discussion of significant improvements in the results section. Comparisons with other approaches are also important to justify the advancement claimed in the submitted manuscript.
• Significance of the results obtained, described by measurable quantitative criteria (runtime for tools, optimality of results, time for design process steps, simplification or automation of manual effort, etc.).
• Degree of experimental evidence to support the claims of the manuscript. Results supported by evidence in industry-strength designs or widely accepted benchmarks with measurable criteria are highly desirable, if not essential.
• A good discussion of limitations of the approach and concepts, and possible areas for future improvement.
• The quality of manuscript writing, use of English, organization and clarity of presentation.
• Once a manuscript has been accepted, the subcommittee organizes it into an appropriate technical session; sessions are then scheduled throughout the duration of the conference.

Copyright Information

Authors of accepted papers must complete the ACM Copyright Form, which will be emailed to the contact author in March. One copyright form is required for each accepted paper.

• Any issues/questions authors have regarding the copyright form or ACM Policy may be addressed to ACM .

One author of each accepted paper that is submitted to DAC for publication in the official conference proceedings is required by ACM to sign a copyright form. 

• ACM authors and co-authors are subject to all ACM Publications Policies   https://www.acm.org/publications/policies , including ACM's new Publications Policy on Research Involving Human Participants and Subjects  https://www.acm.org/publications/policies/research-involving-human-participants-and-subjects

Policy on the AI/ChatGPT

We follow ACM/IEEE policy ond the AI/ChatGPT. In brief, the use of AI software tools (such as ChatGPT, Jasper, AI Write, Lex, for example) is permitted, subject to the following requirements.

• That these systems do not plagiarize, misrepresent, or falsify contents in submissions.
• That if any of generative AI software tools are used to generate new content such as text, images, tables, code, etc., it must be disclosed in either the acknowledgements section of the work or elsewhere in the work prominently, including but not limited to the specific tools and versions, the text of the prompts provided as input, and any post-generation editing (such as rephrasing the generated text). 
• That if authors are using generate AI software tools to edit and improve the quality of your existing text in much the same way you would use a typing assistant like Grammarly to improve spelling, grammar, punctuation, clarity, engagement or to use a basic word processing system to correct spelling or grammar, it is not necessary to disclose such usage of these tools in the work. 
• That the authors accept full responsibility for the veracity and correctness of all material in their work, including any computer-generated materials. 
• ACM’s  Publishing Policy can be found here  and the  Author Rights page can be found here .
• Any issues/questions authors have regarding the copyright form or ACM Policy   addressed to ACM .

​ |back to top|

Diamond Event Sponsor

Event Sponsors

Industry Sponsors

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Hum Reprod Sci
• v.10(1); Jan-Mar 2017

Preparing and Publishing a Scientific Manuscript

Padma r. jirge.

Department of Reproductive Medicine, Sushrut Assisted Conception Clinic Shreyas Hospital, Kolhapur, Maharashtra, India

Publishing original research in a peer-reviewed and indexed journal is an important milestone for a scientist or a clinician. It is an important parameter to assess academic achievements. However, technical and language barriers may prevent many enthusiasts from ever publishing. This review highlights the important preparatory steps for creating a good manuscript and the most widely used IMRaD (Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, and Discussion) method for writing a good manuscript. It also provides a brief overview of the submission and review process of a manuscript for publishing in a biomedical journal.

B ACKGROUND

T he publication of original research in a peer-reviewed and indexed journal is the ultimate and most important step toward the recognition of any scientific work. However, the process starts long before the write-up of a manuscript. The journal in which the author wishes to publish his/her work should be chosen at the time of conceptualization of the scientific work based on the expected readership.

The journals do provide information on the “scope of the journal,” which specifies the scientific areas relevant for publication in the journal, and “instructions to authors,” which need to be adhered to while preparing a manuscript.

The publication of scientific work has become mandatory for scientists or specialists holding academic affiliations, and it is now desirable even at an undergraduate level. Despite a plethora of forums for presenting the original research work, very little of it ever gets published in a scientific journal, and even if it does, the manuscripts are usually from the same few institutions.[ 1 , 2 ] It serves the purpose of academic recognition; and certain publications may even contribute to shaping various national policies. An academic appointment, suitable infrastructure, and access to peer-reviewed journals are considered as the facilitators for publishing.[ 3 ]

The lack of technical and writing skills, institutional hurdles, and time constraints are considered as the major hurdles for any scientific publication.[ 3 ] In addition, the majority of clinicians in India are involved in providing healthcare in the private sector in individually owned hospitals or those governed by small groups of doctors. This necessitates performing a multitude of tasks apart from providing core clinical care and, hence, poses an additional limiting factor because of the long and irregular working hours.

It is extremely challenging to dedicate some time for research and writing in such a scenario. However, it is a loss to science if this group of skilled clinicians does not contribute to medical literature.

Maintaining the ethics and science of research and understanding the norms of preparing a manuscript are very important in improving the quality and relevance of clinical research in our country. This article brings together various aspects to be borne in mind while creating a manuscript suitable for publication. The inputs provided are relevant to all those interested, irrespective of whether they have an academic or institutional affiliation. While the prospect of becoming an author of a published scientific work is exciting, it is important to be prepared for minor or major revisions in the original article and even rejection. However, persevering in this endeavor may help preserving one’s work and contribute to the promotion of science.[ 4 , 5 ]

Important considerations for writing a manuscript include the following:

• (1) Conceptualization of a clinically relevant scientific work.
• (2) Choosing an appropriate journal and an alternative one.
• (3) Familiarizing with instructions to authors.
• (4) Coordination and well-defined task delegation within the team and involvement of a biostatistician from the conception of the study.
• (5) Preparing a skeletal framework for writing the manuscript.
• (6) Delegating time for thinking and writing at regular intervals.

S TEPS I NVOLVED IN M ANUSCRIPT P REPARATION

A manuscript should both be informative and readable. Even though the concept is clear in the authors’ mind, it is important to remember that they are introducing some new work for the readers, and, hence, appropriate organization of the manuscript is necessary to make the purpose and importance of the work clear to the readers.

• (1) Choosing the appropriate journal for publication : The preferred choice of journal should be one of the first steps to be considered, as mentioned earlier. The guidelines for authors may change with time and, hence, should be referred to at regular intervals and conformed to. The choice of journal principally depends on the target readers, and it may be necessary to have one or more journals in mind in case of nonacceptance from the journal of first choice. A journal’s impact factor is to be considered while choosing an appropriate journal.

Majority of the biomedical journals with good impact factor have specific authorship criteria.[ 8 ] This prevents problems related to ghost authorship and honorary authorship. Ghost authorship refers to a scenario wherein an author’s name is omitted to hide financial relationships with private companies; honorary authorship is naming someone who has not made substantial contribution to the work, either due to pressure from colleagues or to improve the chances of publication.[ 9 ]

Most of the journals conform to the authorship criteria defined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.[ 10 ] They are listed as the following:

Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; ANDDrafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; ANDFinal approval of the version to be published; ANDAgreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Some journals require authors to declare their contributions to the research work and manuscript preparation. This helps to prevent honorary and ghost authorship and encourages authors to be more honest and accountable.[ 11 ]

Keywords : are mentioned at the bottom of the Abstract section. These words denote the important aspects of the manuscript and help identify the manuscripts by electronic search engines. Most of the journals specify the number of keywords required, usually between 4 and 8. They need to be simple and specific to the manuscript; a good title contains majority of the keywords.

The general flow of the manuscript follows an IMRaD (Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, and Discussion) structure. Even though this has been recommended since the early 20 th century, most of the authors started following it since the 1970s.[ 13 ]

Important components of the Introduction section

A common error while writing an introduction is an attempt to review the entire evidence available on the topic. This becomes confusing to the reader, and the purpose and importance of the study in question gets submerged in the plethora of information provided. Issues mentioned in the Introduction section will need to be addressed in the Discussion section, and it is important to avoid repetitions and overlapping. Some may prefer to write the Introduction section after preparing the draft of the Materials and Methods and Results sections.

The last paragraph in the Introduction section defines the aim of the study or the study question using active verbs. If there is more than one aim for the study, specify the primary aim and address the secondary aims in a separate sentence. It is recommended that the Introduction section should not occupy more than 10–15% of the entire text.[ 14 ]

This is followed by a detailed description of the study protocol. At times, some of the methods used may be very elaborate and not very relevant to majority of the readers, for example, if polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is used for diagnosis, the type of PCR performed should be mentioned in this section, but the entire procedure need not be elaborated in the “methods” section. Either a relevant reference can be provided or the procedural details can be given online as supplemental data.

It is important to mention both the generic and brand names of all the drugs used along with the name of the manufacturer and the place of manufacturing. Similarly, all the hematological, biochemical, hormonal assays, and radiological investigations performed should provide the specifications of the equipment used and its manufacturer’s details. For many biochemical and endocrine parameters, it is preferred that the intra- and interassay coefficients of variation are provided. In addition, the standard units of measurements and the internationally accepted abbreviations should be used.[ 18 ]

There are online guidelines available to maintain uniformity in reporting the different types of studies such as Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) for randomized controlled trials, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) for observational studies, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for systematic reviews.[ 19 ] Adherence to these guidelines improves the clarity and completeness of reporting.

Statistical analysis : One of the most important deterrents for publishing clinical research is the inability to choose and perform appropriate statistical analysis. With the availability of various user-friendly software systems, an increasing number of the researchers are comfortable performing complex analyses without additional assistance. However, it is still a common practice to involve biostatisticians for this purpose. Coordination between the clinicians and biostatisticians is very important for sample size calculation, creation of a proper data set, and its subsequent analysis. It is important to use the appropriate statistical methodologies for a more complete representation of the data to improve the quality of a manuscript.[ 20 ] It may be helpful to refer to a recent review of the most widely used statistical analyses and their application in clinical research for a better data presentation.[ 20 ] There is some evidence that structured training involving data analysis, manuscript writing, and submission to indexed journals improves the quality of submitted manuscripts even in a low-resource setting.[ 21 ] Short, online certificate courses on biostatistics are available free of cost from many universities across the globe. The important aspects regarding the Materials and Methods section are summarized in Table 2 .

Important components of the Materials and Methods section

The results of the study are summarized in the form of tables and figures. Journals may have limitations on the number of figures and tables, as well as the rows and columns in tables. The text should only highlight the findings recorded in the tables and figures and should not repeat every detail.[ 16 ] Primary analysis should be presented in a separate paragraph. Any secondary analysis performed in view of the results seen in the primary analysis should be mentioned separately [ Table 3 ].

Important components of the Results section

When comparing two groups, it is a good practice to mention the data pertaining to the study group followed by that of the control group and to maintain the same order throughout the section. No adjectives should be used while comparing, except for the statistical significance of the findings. The Results section is written in the past tense, and the numerical values should be presented with a maximum of one decimal place.

Statistical significance as shown by P-value, if accompanied by odds ratio and 95% confidence interval gives important information of direction and size of treatment effect. The measures of central tendencies should be followed by the appropriate measures of variability (mean and standard deviation; median and interquartile range). Relative measures should be accompanied by absolute values (percentage and actual value).[ 22 ] The interpretation of results solely based on bar diagrams or line graphs could be misleading, and a more complete data may be presented in the form of box plots or scatter plots.[ 20 ]

The strengths and weaknesses of the study should be discussed in a separate paragraph. This makes way for implications for clinical practice and future research.[ 16 , 23 ]

The section ends with a conclusion of not more than one to two sentences. The Conclusion section summarizes the study findings in the context of evidence in the field. The important components of the Discussion section are summarized in Table 4 [ Figure 1 ].

Important components of the Discussion section

The hourglass structure of the Introduction and Discussion sections

A referencing tool such as EndNote™ may be used to store and organize the references. The references at the end of the manuscript need to be listed in a manner specified by the journal. The common styles used are Vancouver, Harvard, APA, etc.[ 24 ] Despite continued efforts, standardization to one global format has not yet become a reality.[ 25 ]

It is important to understand the evidence in the referenced articles to write meaningful Introduction and Discussion sections. Online search engines such as Pubmed, Medline, and Scopus are some of the sources that provide abstracts from indexed journals. However, a full-text article may not always be available unless one has subscription for the journals. Those with institutional attachments, authors, and even the research division of pharmaceutical companies may be unconventional but helpful sources for procuring full-text articles. Individual articles can be purchased from certain journals as well.

• (9) Acknowledgements : This section follows the Conclusion section. People who have helped in various aspects of the concerned research work, statistical analysis, or manuscript preparation, but do not qualify to be authors for the study, are acknowledged, preferably with their academic affiliations.[ 26 ]

The aforementioned section provides the general guidelines for preparing a good manuscript. However, an exhaustive list of available guidelines and other resources to facilitate good research reporting are provided by the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research network ( http://www.equator-network.org ).

A DDITIONAL F ACTORS I NFLUENCING THE M ANUSCRIPT Q UALITY

• (1) Plagiarism : Plagiarism is a serious threat to scientific publications and is described by the office of Research Integrity as “theft or misappropriation of intellectual property and the substantial unattributed textual copying of another’s work and the representation of them as one’s own original work.” The primary responsibility of preventing plagiarism lies with the authors. It is important to develop the skill of writing any manuscript in one’s own words and when quoting available evidence, substantiate with appropriate references. However, the use of plagiarism detection tools and a critical analysis by the editorial team prior to submitting an article for peer review are also equally important to prevent this menace.[ 29 ] The consequences of plagiarism could range from disciplinary charges such as retraction of the article to criminal charges.[ 30 ]
• (2) Language : One of the important limitations to publication is the problem of writing in English. This can be minimized by seeking help from colleagues or using the language editing service provided by many of the journals.
• (3) Professional medical writing support : In recent years, it is acknowledged that the lack of time and linguistic constraints prevent some of the good work from being published. Hence, the role of professional medical writing support is being critically evaluated. Declared professional medical writing support is found to be associated with more complete reporting of clinical trial results and higher quality of written English. Medical writing support may play an important role in raising the quality of clinical trial reporting.[ 31 ] The role of professional medical writers should be acknowledged in the Acknowledgements section.[ 32 ]

S UBMISSION TO J OURNALS AND R EVIEWING P ROCESS

The submission of manuscripts is now exclusively an online exercise. The basic model of submission in any journal comprises the following: the title file or first page file, article file, image files, videos, charts, tables, figures, and copyright/consent forms. It is important to keep all the files ready in a folder before starting the submission process. When submitting images, it is important to have good quality, well-focused images with good resolution.[ 33 ] Some journals may offer the choice of selecting preferred reviewers to the authors and hence, one must be prepared for this. Once the manuscript is submitted, the status can be periodically checked. With minor variations, a submitted article goes through the following review process: The Editor allocates it to one of the editorial team members who checks for the suitability for publication in the journal. It is checked for plagiarism as well at this stage. The article then goes for peer review to two to three reviewers. The review process may take 4–6 weeks, at the end of which, the reviewers submit their remarks, and “article decision” is made, which could be an advice for minor/major revisions, rewriting the whole manuscript for specific reasons, acceptance without any changes (very rare), or rejection. It is important to take into consideration all the comments of the reviewers and incorporate the necessary changes in the manuscript before resubmitting. However, if the manuscript is rejected, revise to incorporate the valid suggestions given by the reviewers and consider submitting to another journal in the field. This should be effected without delay overcoming the disappointment so that the research still remains valid in the context of time.

P REDATORY J OURNALS

Some of the well-known journals provide an “open access” option to the authors, wherein if the manuscript is published, it is accessible to all the readers online free of cost. However, the authors need to pay a certain fee to make their manuscript an open access article. In addition, some of the well-known journals published by reputed publishers such as BioMed Central (BMC) and Public Library of Science (PLoS) have online “open access” journals, where the manuscripts are published for a fee but are subjected to the conventional scrutiny process, and the readers can access the full-text article.[ 34 ] The Directory of Open Access Journals, http://doaj.org , is an online directory that indexes and provides access to high-quality, open access, peer-reviewed journals. However, many online open access journals are mushrooming, which provide a legitimate face for an illegitimate publication process lacking basic industry standards, sound peer review practices, and solid basis in publication ethics. Such journals are known as “predatory journals.”[ 35 ] The pressure of needing to have scientific publications and the lack of knowledge regarding predatory journals may encourage authors to submit their articles to such journals. Currently, it is not easy to identify predatory journals, and authors should seek such information proactively from mentors, journal websites, and recent and relevant published literature. In addition, editorial oversights (editors and editorial board members), peer review practices, the quality of published articles, indexing, access, citations and ethical practices are important aspects to be considered while choosing an appropriate journal.[ 36 ]

A relevant research hypothesis and research conducted within the ethical framework are of utmost importance for clinical research. The natural progression from here is the manuscript preparation, a daunting process for most of the clinicians involved in clinical research. Choosing a journal that provides an appropriate platform for the manuscript, conforming to the instructions specific for the journal, and following certain simple guidelines can result in successful preparation and publishing of scientific work. Allocating certain time at regular intervals for writing and maintaining discipline and perseverance in this regard are very important prerequisites to achieve the goal of successful publication.

Financial support and sponsorship

Conflicts of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest.

R EFERENCES

Nevada Today

Shakespearean mystery: what’s the story of newly discovered manuscript, handwriting similar to the playwright’s distinctive style abounds in previously unknown document.

Eric Rasmussen is reluctant — really, really reluctant — to draw any big conclusions from his newly unearthed manuscript that might have been written in pen and ink by William Shakespeare.

Even so, Rasmussen believes the single handwritten page he purchased at an auction of antiquarian documents not long ago holds promise to help scholars understand some of the mysteries surrounding the life and work of one of the world’s most famous playwrights.

Rasmussen , regents teaching professor and foundation professor of English at the University of Nevada, Reno, is among the world’s preeminent scholars on early texts of Shakespeare’s work. He’s also a collector of Elizabethan and Jacobean documents from the decades on either side of the year 1600.

So it’s no surprise that he made a $100 bid — the only bid, it turned out — when a small handwritten page from the 16th century came up for sale at an auction house in Social Circle, Ga., that specializes in old manuscripts.

But when Rasmussen received the manuscript and began studying it carefully, he quickly identified a quirk of handwriting that scholars long have associated with Shakespeare, and only with Shakespeare. The playwright wrote with a distinctive, looping hand whenever he encountered words with a combination of the letters h and a — words such as “that,” or “shalt,” or “hang” or “Shakespeare.”

That looping “h-a,” in fact, long has been cited as one of the primary pieces of evidence supporting the belief that Shakespeare was one of several authors of a play known as “Sir Thomas More” written around 1600. Now housed at the British Museum, the manuscript of that play — the only document believed to contain Shakespeare’s handwriting outside of a few signatures on legal documents — includes numerous instances of the distinctive “h-a.” Scholars who studied thousands of manuscripts from Shakespeare’s era haven’t found another single instance of that looping “h-a,” and one leading researcher described the chances of finding one as “astronomical.” Rasmussen beat those odds and has published his discovery in the September issue of the leading scholarly journal, “ The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America .”

Handwritten text covers both sides of the 7-inch by 5-inch manuscript he acquired. The text itself is a portion of a previously unknown English translation of a Catholic theological text written in the 5th century by the French monk Vincent of Lerins.

Importantly, the text includes numerous instances of the distinctive looping “h-a.”

That, Rasmussen said, raises two possibilities:

The first possibility: The newly discovered manuscript is, indeed, in the handwriting of Shakespeare. That would be a spectacular find in a world that knows of only six Shakespearean signatures on legal documents along with the possibility of the three handwritten pages of “Sir Thomas More.”

But that possibility, in turn, raises a host of new questions. Why, for example, was Shakespeare copying a centuries-old text written by a Catholic monk, especially at a time when possession of Catholic texts was largely forbidden in England?

Rasmussen wonders if Shakespeare might have worked as a professional scribe early in his career. Nothing at all is known of the playwright’s life between 1585, when he was 23 years old, and his arrival on the London stage in 1592. The possibility that he was a scribe, even if the only evidence is the single small page owned by Rasmussen, would begin to fill in those blank years.

The second possibility: The manuscript actually isn’t in the handwriting of Shakespeare. The swooping “h-a” isn’t unique to Shakespeare after all.

If that’s the case, Rasmussen said, untold numbers of books, articles and dissertations that attributed parts of the play “Sir Thomas More” to Shakespeare will be undermined. The words of the play, especially its oft-quoted plea for compassion for immigrants, would remain unchanged. But they no longer would necessarily be regarded as Shakespearean.

Many readers would feel the loss.

“The world at large celebrates Shakespeare’s enduring relevance, specially exemplified by his nuanced understanding of issues of immigration and nationalism,” Rasmussen said. “We want Sir Thomas More’s timeless speech — what ‘The International Rescue Committee’ called ‘Shakespeare’s Rallying Cry for Humanity’ – to have been written by, well, Shakespeare.”

So far, other leading Shakespeare scholars around the world have reserved judgment on either of the possibilities, although they’re intrigued by Rasmussen’s findings.

In the meantime, one other big mystery remains: How did a little piece of manuscript possibly containing the handwriting of William Shakespeare end up at an auction house in Social Circle, Ga., a town of 5,000 some 45 miles east of Atlanta?

That, Rasmussen said, probably always will be unknown. He surmises that a Catholic English family seeking to protect themselves from Protestant persecution might have hidden the page and the rest of the document from which it came.

But in the end, he said, no one ever will know the 400-year travels of that little 5-by-7 sheet with its distinctive “h-a.”

Please review the September 2024 issue of “ The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America ” for Rasmussen’s full scholarly article about the Shakespeare manuscript.

Research & Innovation

International collaborations strengthened at Lake Tahoe Summit

USAID group hosted by University of Nevada, Reno attends Lake Tahoe Summit

Humble hemp-seed and its byproducts hold promise to improve digestive health

University of Nevada, Reno researchers find hemp hulls may promote growth, diversity of gut biome

Professor Valerie Fridland receives competitive Fellowship for the second time

The National Endowment for the Humanities Fellowship is supporting Fridland in the completion of another book

Researchers use observations to remove bias in climate models in Southern Hemisphere

An unexpected cooling trend, followed by warming, threw models off

Editor's Picks

Sagebrushers season 3 ep. 10: Lilley Museum Director Stephanie Gibson

University of Nevada, Reno hosts their second annual Latinx Parent Welcome ‘Mi Casa es su Casa’

Wolf Pack Map – a new resource is available to help navigate around the University campuses and locations

University of Nevada, Reno signs agreements with two universities in Italy

Summer in South Korea

Engineering student experiences the dalgona challenge, getting lost in Seoul and other adventures on an international exchange

Registering to vote: what University of Nevada, Reno students need to know

The ASUN Center for Student Engagement offers tips, resources

Picture of health: improving Latino representation in health care

From literacy to language barriers, Jose Cucalon Calderon, M.D, aims to bridge gaps in health care access, education and representation for Northern Nevada’s Latino population

Great Basin Mural celebration on Sept. 19 part of the University’s sesquicentennial celebrations

Artist Autumn Harry to discuss how her vision has come to life

New Extension educator to boost farming productivity and sustainability in rural Nevada

Andrew Waaswa will develop targeted training programs to support agricultural producers

University Libraries’ Vault Studio Classroom: A rare gem in academia

Special Collections aspires to be a welcoming, inspiring, and vital primary source laboratory for inquiry and discovery.

Study projects Humboldt lithium project will generate over $1 billion per year in investment and sales for Nevada

University quantifies estimated economic and fiscal impacts of the mine on Humboldt County and Nevada

Sanford Center for Aging receives $783,000 in grant funding

Funding will support programs for older adults in fiscal year 2025