1. The material was supported by an educational grant from Ferring How to Write a Scientific Article Nikolaos P. Polyzos M.D. PhD

2. Well written papers are: Read Remembered Cited Poorly written papers are not…

3. What Journal? Select a journal relevant to the work done Read ‘guidelines for authors’ on journal website Success depends on the ‘quality’ of the research –Innovative –Design of the study –Size of the study –Human or Animal –Effect on clinical practice

4. Title Describes the contents of the paper –As brief as possible –Descriptive ‘Key words’ Molecular studies Organism used Treatment Outcome measured Opinion paper - catchy title: ‘OHSS free clinic’ Most readers find your paper via electronic database searches

5. Authors The Vancouver Criteria Each and every author on a publication needs to have been involved in the: Conception and design, or analysis and interpretation of data; AND Drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND Final approval of the version to be published

6. Why Has the Number of Authors Increase With Years? Average Number of Personal or Collective Author Names Per MEDLINE/PubMed Citation (when personal or collective author name present) Collective Author Names Personal Author Names 5.50 5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 1950195519601965197019751980198519901995200020052010 Year of Publication Average Number of Author Names

7. Abstract Summarizes the major aspects Question(s) you investigated –From introduction Experimental design –From Material and Methods Major findings and key quantitative results –From results Interpretation and conclusions –From discussion

8. Abstract Summarizes the major aspects All information in the abstract should appear in the body of the paper No lengthy background information No references No abbreviations No figures, tables or references to them

9. Introduction Establish the context of the work reported –Cite the primary research literature

10. Introduction Most important part… Reviewers read in order to know why you did the study, and whether it was worth doing... CONVINCE THEM!

11. Introduction Establish the context of work reported –Cite the primary research literature and questions that remain unanswered State purpose of the work –Hypothesis, question or problem Explain your rationale and approach –Possible outcomes your study can reveal

12. Introduction Establish the context of work reported –Cite the primary research literature and questions that remain unanswered State purpose of the work –Hypothesis, question or problem Explain your rationale and approach –Possible outcomes your study can reveal

13. Material and Methods Protocol for collecting data –How study was performed How data were analyzed –Statistics

14. Results Key results without interpretation: concise and objective Use both text and illustrations (figures, tables) Organize Results section based on the sequence of Tables and Figures

15. Results Do not report individual raw data values when they can be summarized as means, percents, etc. Some information may be placed in supplementary material (e.g., primers for generating DNA sequencing)

16. Discussion Succinctly state your findings in the first paragraph Always “connect” with the introduction Interpret your results in light of what was already known Upright triangle

17. Discussion Fundamental questions to answer: Do your results provide answers to your hypothesis? Do your findings agree with what others have shown? Given your conclusions: what is the new understanding? What should be done next?

18. Discussion Stay focused on the research topic of the paper Use paragraphs to separate each important point If findings did not support your hypothesis, accept this and do not attempt to explain away Present your points in logical order Do not introduce new results

19. Discussion Comparable studies! Can systematic reviews and meta-analyses always give you the best available evidence…..*- EVEN WITH ZERO TRIALS?

20. Meta-analysis and Number of Trials Included 61 systematic reviews published in Cochrane during July 2012 –15% included 1 or 0 trials –Half included fewer than 1,000 randomized patients –31 were updated reviews –11 of these 31 updated reviews included the same number of trials and participants as the previous review they sought to bring up to date

21. Acknowledgments Assistance in thinking, designing, carrying out work, providing medication Outside reviewers of the draft Obtain permission from those to be acknowledged Sources of funding Conflicts of interest may be required

22. References List of cited articles Order/style: depends on the journal Software available (endnote, reference manager,…)

23. Finally Self-revise your paper multiple times –Enhance the logical flow of your arguments –Shorten long sentences to clarify them –Perform spelling check –Revision by native English speaker –Check the word count (abstract, whole article…)

24. Finally Read your article many times before you submit …. like it is not yours Try to find flaws — be the most critical reviewer of yourself

25. Thank you