how a research paper is published

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Happiness Hub Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• Happiness Hub
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• College University and Postgraduate
• Academic Writing
• Research Papers

How to Write and Publish Your Research in a Journal

Last Updated: May 26, 2024 Fact Checked

Choosing a Journal

Writing the research paper, editing & revising your paper, submitting your paper, navigating the peer review process, research paper help.

This article was co-authored by Matthew Snipp, PhD and by wikiHow staff writer, Cheyenne Main . C. Matthew Snipp is the Burnet C. and Mildred Finley Wohlford Professor of Humanities and Sciences in the Department of Sociology at Stanford University. He is also the Director for the Institute for Research in the Social Science’s Secure Data Center. He has been a Research Fellow at the U.S. Bureau of the Census and a Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. He has published 3 books and over 70 articles and book chapters on demography, economic development, poverty and unemployment. He is also currently serving on the National Institute of Child Health and Development’s Population Science Subcommittee. He holds a Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Wisconsin—Madison. There are 13 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 705,588 times.

Publishing a research paper in a peer-reviewed journal allows you to network with other scholars, get your name and work into circulation, and further refine your ideas and research. Before submitting your paper, make sure it reflects all the work you’ve done and have several people read over it and make comments. Keep reading to learn how you can choose a journal, prepare your work for publication, submit it, and revise it after you get a response back.

Things You Should Know

• Create a list of journals you’d like to publish your work in and choose one that best aligns with your topic and your desired audience.
• Prepare your manuscript using the journal’s requirements and ask at least 2 professors or supervisors to review your paper.
• Write a cover letter that “sells” your manuscript, says how your research adds to your field and explains why you chose the specific journal you’re submitting to.

• Ask your professors or supervisors for well-respected journals that they’ve had good experiences publishing with and that they read regularly.
• Many journals also only accept specific formats, so by choosing a journal before you start, you can write your article to their specifications and increase your chances of being accepted.
• If you’ve already written a paper you’d like to publish, consider whether your research directly relates to a hot topic or area of research in the journals you’re looking into.

• Review the journal’s peer review policies and submission process to see if you’re comfortable creating or adjusting your work according to their standards.
• Open-access journals can increase your readership because anyone can access them.

• Scientific research papers: Instead of a “thesis,” you might write a “research objective” instead. This is where you state the purpose of your research.
• “This paper explores how George Washington’s experiences as a young officer may have shaped his views during difficult circumstances as a commanding officer.”
• “This paper contends that George Washington’s experiences as a young officer on the 1750s Pennsylvania frontier directly impacted his relationship with his Continental Army troops during the harsh winter at Valley Forge.”

• Scientific research papers: Include a “materials and methods” section with the step-by-step process you followed and the materials you used. [5] X Research source
• Read other research papers in your field to see how they’re written. Their format, writing style, subject matter, and vocabulary can help guide your own paper. [6] X Research source

• If you’re writing about George Washington’s experiences as a young officer, you might emphasize how this research changes our perspective of the first president of the U.S.
• Link this section to your thesis or research objective.
• If you’re writing a paper about ADHD, you might discuss other applications for your research.

• Scientific research papers: You might include your research and/or analytical methods, your main findings or results, and the significance or implications of your research.
• Try to get as many people as you can to read over your abstract and provide feedback before you submit your paper to a journal.

• They might also provide templates to help you structure your manuscript according to their specific guidelines. [11] X Research source

• Not all journal reviewers will be experts on your specific topic, so a non-expert “outsider’s perspective” can be valuable.

• If you have a paper on the purification of wastewater with fungi, you might use both the words “fungi” and “mushrooms.”
• Use software like iThenticate, Turnitin, or PlagScan to check for similarities between the submitted article and published material available online. [15] X Research source

• Header: Address the editor who will be reviewing your manuscript by their name, include the date of submission, and the journal you are submitting to.
• First paragraph: Include the title of your manuscript, the type of paper it is (like review, research, or case study), and the research question you wanted to answer and why.
• Second paragraph: Explain what was done in your research, your main findings, and why they are significant to your field.
• Third paragraph: Explain why the journal’s readers would be interested in your work and why your results are important to your field.
• Conclusion: State the author(s) and any journal requirements that your work complies with (like ethical standards”).
• “We confirm that this manuscript has not been published elsewhere and is not under consideration by another journal.”
• “All authors have approved the manuscript and agree with its submission to [insert the name of the target journal].”

• Submit your article to only one journal at a time.
• When submitting online, use your university email account. This connects you with a scholarly institution, which can add credibility to your work.

• Accept: Only minor adjustments are needed, based on the provided feedback by the reviewers. A first submission will rarely be accepted without any changes needed.
• Revise and Resubmit: Changes are needed before publication can be considered, but the journal is still very interested in your work.
• Reject and Resubmit: Extensive revisions are needed. Your work may not be acceptable for this journal, but they might also accept it if significant changes are made.
• Reject: The paper isn’t and won’t be suitable for this publication, but that doesn’t mean it might not work for another journal.

• Try organizing the reviewer comments by how easy it is to address them. That way, you can break your revisions down into more manageable parts.
• If you disagree with a comment made by a reviewer, try to provide an evidence-based explanation when you resubmit your paper.

• If you’re resubmitting your paper to the same journal, include a point-by-point response paper that talks about how you addressed all of the reviewers’ comments in your revision. [22] X Research source
• If you’re not sure which journal to submit to next, you might be able to ask the journal editor which publications they recommend.

Expert Q&A

You might also like.

• If reviewers suspect that your submitted manuscript plagiarizes another work, they may refer to a Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) flowchart to see how to move forward. [23] X Research source Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0

• ↑ https://www.wiley.com/en-us/network/publishing/research-publishing/choosing-a-journal/6-steps-to-choosing-the-right-journal-for-your-research-infographic
• ↑ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13187-020-01751-z
• ↑ https://libguides.unomaha.edu/c.php?g=100510&p=651627
• ↑ https://www.canberra.edu.au/library/start-your-research/research_help/publishing-research
• ↑ https://writingcenter.fas.harvard.edu/conclusions
• ↑ https://writing.wisc.edu/handbook/assignments/writing-an-abstract-for-your-research-paper/
• ↑ https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/book-authors-editors/your-publication-journey/manuscript-preparation
• ↑ https://apus.libanswers.com/writing/faq/2391
• ↑ https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/keyword/search-strategy
• ↑ https://ifis.libguides.com/journal-publishing-guide/submitting-your-paper
• ↑ https://www.springer.com/kr/authors-editors/authorandreviewertutorials/submitting-to-a-journal-and-peer-review/cover-letters/10285574
• ↑ https://www.apa.org/monitor/sep02/publish.aspx
• ↑ Matthew Snipp, PhD. Research Fellow, U.S. Bureau of the Census. Expert Interview. 26 March 2020.

About This Article

To publish a research paper, ask a colleague or professor to review your paper and give you feedback. Once you've revised your work, familiarize yourself with different academic journals so that you can choose the publication that best suits your paper. Make sure to look at the "Author's Guide" so you can format your paper according to the guidelines for that publication. Then, submit your paper and don't get discouraged if it is not accepted right away. You may need to revise your paper and try again. To learn about the different responses you might get from journals, see our reviewer's explanation below. Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

RAMDEV GOHIL

Oct 16, 2017

Did this article help you?

David Okandeji

Oct 23, 2019

Revati Joshi

Feb 13, 2017

Shahzad Khan

Jul 1, 2017

Apr 7, 2017

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

Don’t miss out! Sign up for

wikiHow’s newsletter

Home → Get Published → How to Publish a Research Paper: A Step-by-Step Guide

How to Publish a Research Paper: A Step-by-Step Guide

Jordan Kruszynski

• January 4, 2024

You’re in academia.

You’re going steady.

Your research is going well and you begin to wonder: ‘ How exactly do I get a research paper published?’

If this is the question on your lips, then this step-by-step guide is the one for you. We’ll be walking you through the whole process of how to publish a research paper.

Publishing a research paper is a significant milestone for researchers and academics, as it allows you to share your findings, contribute to your field of study, and start to gain serious recognition within the wider academic community. So, want to know how to publish a research paper? By following our guide, you’ll get a firm grasp of the steps involved in this process, giving you the best chance of successfully navigating the publishing process and getting your work out there.

Understanding the Publishing Process

To begin, it’s crucial to understand that getting a research paper published is a multi-step process. From beginning to end, it could take as little as 2 months before you see your paper nestled in the pages of your chosen journal. On the other hand, it could take as long as a year .

Below, we set out the steps before going into more detail on each one. Getting a feel for these steps will help you to visualise what lies ahead, and prepare yourself for each of them in turn. It’s important to remember that you won’t actually have control over every step – in fact, some of them will be decided by people you’ll probably never meet. However, knowing which parts of the process are yours to decide will allow you to adjust your approach and attitude accordingly.

Each of the following stages will play a vital role in the eventual publication of your paper:

• Preparing Your Research Paper
• Finding the Right Journal
• Crafting a Strong Manuscript
• Navigating the Peer-Review Process
• Submitting Your Paper
• Dealing with Rejections and Revising Your Paper

Step 1: Preparing Your Research Paper

It all starts here. The quality and content of your research paper is of fundamental importance if you want to get it published. This step will be different for every researcher depending on the nature of your research, but if you haven’t yet settled on a topic, then consider the following advice:

• Choose an interesting and relevant topic that aligns with current trends in your field. If your research touches on the passions and concerns of your academic peers or wider society, it may be more likely to capture attention and get published successfully.
• Conduct a comprehensive literature review (link to lit. review article once it’s published) to identify the state of existing research and any knowledge gaps within it. Aiming to fill a clear gap in the knowledge of your field is a great way to increase the practicality of your research and improve its chances of getting published.
• Structure your paper in a clear and organised manner, including all the necessary sections such as title, abstract, introduction (link to the ‘how to write a research paper intro’ article once it’s published) , methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion.
• Adhere to the formatting guidelines provided by your target journal to ensure that your paper is accepted as viable for publishing. More on this in the next section…

Step 2: Finding the Right Journal

Understanding how to publish a research paper involves selecting the appropriate journal for your work. This step is critical for successful publication, and you should take several factors into account when deciding which journal to apply for:

• Conduct thorough research to identify journals that specialise in your field of study and have published similar research. Naturally, if you submit a piece of research in molecular genetics to a journal that specialises in geology, you won’t be likely to get very far.
• Consider factors such as the journal’s scope, impact factor, and target audience. Today there is a wide array of journals to choose from, including traditional and respected print journals, as well as numerous online, open-access endeavours. Some, like Nature , even straddle both worlds.
• Review the submission guidelines provided by the journal and ensure your paper meets all the formatting requirements and word limits. This step is key. Nature, for example, offers a highly informative series of pages that tells you everything you need to know in order to satisfy their formatting guidelines (plus more on the whole submission process).
• Note that these guidelines can differ dramatically from journal to journal, and details really do matter. You might submit an outstanding piece of research, but if it includes, for example, images in the wrong size or format, this could mean a lengthy delay to getting it published. If you get everything right first time, you’ll save yourself a lot of time and trouble, as well as strengthen your publishing chances in the first place.

Step 3: Crafting a Strong Manuscript

Crafting a strong manuscript is crucial to impress journal editors and reviewers. Look at your paper as a complete package, and ensure that all the sections tie together to deliver your findings with clarity and precision.

• Begin by creating a clear and concise title that accurately reflects the content of your paper.
• Compose an informative abstract that summarises the purpose, methodology, results, and significance of your study.
• Craft an engaging introduction (link to the research paper introduction article) that draws your reader in.
• Develop a well-structured methodology section, presenting your results effectively using tables and figures.
• Write a compelling discussion and conclusion that emphasise the significance of your findings.

Step 4: Navigating the Peer-Review Process

Once you submit your research paper to a journal, it undergoes a rigorous peer-review process to ensure its quality and validity. In peer-review, experts in your field assess your research and provide feedback and suggestions for improvement, ultimately determining whether your paper is eligible for publishing or not. You are likely to encounter several models of peer-review, based on which party – author, reviewer, or both – remains anonymous throughout the process.

When your paper undergoes the peer-review process, be prepared for constructive criticism and address the comments you receive from your reviewer thoughtfully, providing clear and concise responses to their concerns or suggestions. These could make all the difference when it comes to making your next submission.

The peer-review process can seem like a closed book at times. Check out our discussion of the issue with philosopher and academic Amna Whiston in The Research Beat podcast!

Step 5: Submitting Your Paper

As we’ve already pointed out, one of the key elements in how to publish a research paper is ensuring that you meticulously follow the journal’s submission guidelines. Strive to comply with all formatting requirements, including citation styles, font, margins, and reference structure.

Before the final submission, thoroughly proofread your paper for errors, including grammar, spelling, and any inconsistencies in your data or analysis. At this stage, consider seeking feedback from colleagues or mentors to further improve the quality of your paper.

Step 6: Dealing with Rejections and Revising Your Paper

Rejection is a common part of the publishing process, but it shouldn’t discourage you. Analyse reviewer comments objectively and focus on the constructive feedback provided. Make necessary revisions and improvements to your paper to address the concerns raised by reviewers. If needed, consider submitting your paper to a different journal that is a better fit for your research.

For more tips on how to publish your paper out there, check out this thread by Dr. Asad Naveed ( @dr_asadnaveed ) – and if you need a refresher on the basics of how to publish under the Open Access model, watch this 5-minute video from Audemic Academy !

Final Thoughts

Successfully understanding how to publish a research paper requires dedication, attention to detail, and a systematic approach. By following the advice in our guide, you can increase your chances of navigating the publishing process effectively and achieving your goal of publication.

Remember, the journey may involve revisions, peer feedback, and potential rejections, but each step is an opportunity for growth and improvement. Stay persistent, maintain a positive mindset, and continue to refine your research paper until it reaches the standards of your target journal. Your contribution to your wider discipline through published research will not only advance your career, but also add to the growing body of collective knowledge in your field. Embrace the challenges and rewards that come with the publication process, and may your research paper make a significant impact in your area of study!

Looking for inspiration for your next big paper? Head to Audemic , where you can organise and listen to all the best and latest research in your field!

Keep striving, researchers! ✨

Table of Contents

Related articles.

You’re in academia. You’re going steady. Your research is going well and you begin to wonder: ‘How exactly do I get a

Behind the Scenes: What Does a Research Assistant Do?

Have you ever wondered what goes on behind the scenes in a research lab? Does it involve acting out the whims of

How to Write a Research Paper Introduction: Hook, Line, and Sinker

Want to know how to write a research paper introduction that dazzles? Struggling to hook your reader in with your opening sentences?

Blog Podcast

Privacy policy Terms of service

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Discover more from Audemic: Access any academic research via audio

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Continue reading

• Privacy Policy

Home » Research Paper – Structure, Examples and Writing Guide

Research Paper – Structure, Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Research Paper

Definition:

Research Paper is a written document that presents the author’s original research, analysis, and interpretation of a specific topic or issue.

It is typically based on Empirical Evidence, and may involve qualitative or quantitative research methods, or a combination of both. The purpose of a research paper is to contribute new knowledge or insights to a particular field of study, and to demonstrate the author’s understanding of the existing literature and theories related to the topic.

Structure of Research Paper

The structure of a research paper typically follows a standard format, consisting of several sections that convey specific information about the research study. The following is a detailed explanation of the structure of a research paper:

The title page contains the title of the paper, the name(s) of the author(s), and the affiliation(s) of the author(s). It also includes the date of submission and possibly, the name of the journal or conference where the paper is to be published.

The abstract is a brief summary of the research paper, typically ranging from 100 to 250 words. It should include the research question, the methods used, the key findings, and the implications of the results. The abstract should be written in a concise and clear manner to allow readers to quickly grasp the essence of the research.

Introduction

The introduction section of a research paper provides background information about the research problem, the research question, and the research objectives. It also outlines the significance of the research, the research gap that it aims to fill, and the approach taken to address the research question. Finally, the introduction section ends with a clear statement of the research hypothesis or research question.

Literature Review

The literature review section of a research paper provides an overview of the existing literature on the topic of study. It includes a critical analysis and synthesis of the literature, highlighting the key concepts, themes, and debates. The literature review should also demonstrate the research gap and how the current study seeks to address it.

The methods section of a research paper describes the research design, the sample selection, the data collection and analysis procedures, and the statistical methods used to analyze the data. This section should provide sufficient detail for other researchers to replicate the study.

The results section presents the findings of the research, using tables, graphs, and figures to illustrate the data. The findings should be presented in a clear and concise manner, with reference to the research question and hypothesis.

The discussion section of a research paper interprets the findings and discusses their implications for the research question, the literature review, and the field of study. It should also address the limitations of the study and suggest future research directions.

The conclusion section summarizes the main findings of the study, restates the research question and hypothesis, and provides a final reflection on the significance of the research.

The references section provides a list of all the sources cited in the paper, following a specific citation style such as APA, MLA or Chicago.

How to Write Research Paper

You can write Research Paper by the following guide:

• Choose a Topic: The first step is to select a topic that interests you and is relevant to your field of study. Brainstorm ideas and narrow down to a research question that is specific and researchable.
• Conduct a Literature Review: The literature review helps you identify the gap in the existing research and provides a basis for your research question. It also helps you to develop a theoretical framework and research hypothesis.
• Develop a Thesis Statement : The thesis statement is the main argument of your research paper. It should be clear, concise and specific to your research question.
• Plan your Research: Develop a research plan that outlines the methods, data sources, and data analysis procedures. This will help you to collect and analyze data effectively.
• Collect and Analyze Data: Collect data using various methods such as surveys, interviews, observations, or experiments. Analyze data using statistical tools or other qualitative methods.
• Organize your Paper : Organize your paper into sections such as Introduction, Literature Review, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion. Ensure that each section is coherent and follows a logical flow.
• Write your Paper : Start by writing the introduction, followed by the literature review, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Ensure that your writing is clear, concise, and follows the required formatting and citation styles.
• Edit and Proofread your Paper: Review your paper for grammar and spelling errors, and ensure that it is well-structured and easy to read. Ask someone else to review your paper to get feedback and suggestions for improvement.
• Cite your Sources: Ensure that you properly cite all sources used in your research paper. This is essential for giving credit to the original authors and avoiding plagiarism.

Research Paper Example

Note : The below example research paper is for illustrative purposes only and is not an actual research paper. Actual research papers may have different structures, contents, and formats depending on the field of study, research question, data collection and analysis methods, and other factors. Students should always consult with their professors or supervisors for specific guidelines and expectations for their research papers.

Research Paper Example sample for Students:

Title: The Impact of Social Media on Mental Health among Young Adults

Abstract: This study aims to investigate the impact of social media use on the mental health of young adults. A literature review was conducted to examine the existing research on the topic. A survey was then administered to 200 university students to collect data on their social media use, mental health status, and perceived impact of social media on their mental health. The results showed that social media use is positively associated with depression, anxiety, and stress. The study also found that social comparison, cyberbullying, and FOMO (Fear of Missing Out) are significant predictors of mental health problems among young adults.

Introduction: Social media has become an integral part of modern life, particularly among young adults. While social media has many benefits, including increased communication and social connectivity, it has also been associated with negative outcomes, such as addiction, cyberbullying, and mental health problems. This study aims to investigate the impact of social media use on the mental health of young adults.

Literature Review: The literature review highlights the existing research on the impact of social media use on mental health. The review shows that social media use is associated with depression, anxiety, stress, and other mental health problems. The review also identifies the factors that contribute to the negative impact of social media, including social comparison, cyberbullying, and FOMO.

Methods : A survey was administered to 200 university students to collect data on their social media use, mental health status, and perceived impact of social media on their mental health. The survey included questions on social media use, mental health status (measured using the DASS-21), and perceived impact of social media on their mental health. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and regression analysis.

Results : The results showed that social media use is positively associated with depression, anxiety, and stress. The study also found that social comparison, cyberbullying, and FOMO are significant predictors of mental health problems among young adults.

Discussion : The study’s findings suggest that social media use has a negative impact on the mental health of young adults. The study highlights the need for interventions that address the factors contributing to the negative impact of social media, such as social comparison, cyberbullying, and FOMO.

Conclusion : In conclusion, social media use has a significant impact on the mental health of young adults. The study’s findings underscore the need for interventions that promote healthy social media use and address the negative outcomes associated with social media use. Future research can explore the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing the negative impact of social media on mental health. Additionally, longitudinal studies can investigate the long-term effects of social media use on mental health.

Limitations : The study has some limitations, including the use of self-report measures and a cross-sectional design. The use of self-report measures may result in biased responses, and a cross-sectional design limits the ability to establish causality.

Implications: The study’s findings have implications for mental health professionals, educators, and policymakers. Mental health professionals can use the findings to develop interventions that address the negative impact of social media use on mental health. Educators can incorporate social media literacy into their curriculum to promote healthy social media use among young adults. Policymakers can use the findings to develop policies that protect young adults from the negative outcomes associated with social media use.

References :

• Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2019). Associations between screen time and lower psychological well-being among children and adolescents: Evidence from a population-based study. Preventive medicine reports, 15, 100918.
• Primack, B. A., Shensa, A., Escobar-Viera, C. G., Barrett, E. L., Sidani, J. E., Colditz, J. B., … & James, A. E. (2017). Use of multiple social media platforms and symptoms of depression and anxiety: A nationally-representative study among US young adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 1-9.
• Van der Meer, T. G., & Verhoeven, J. W. (2017). Social media and its impact on academic performance of students. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 16, 383-398.

Appendix : The survey used in this study is provided below.

Social Media and Mental Health Survey

• How often do you use social media per day?
• Less than 30 minutes
• 30 minutes to 1 hour
• 1 to 2 hours
• 2 to 4 hours
• More than 4 hours
• Which social media platforms do you use?
• Others (Please specify)
• How often do you experience the following on social media?
• Social comparison (comparing yourself to others)
• Cyberbullying
• Fear of Missing Out (FOMO)
• Have you ever experienced any of the following mental health problems in the past month?
• Do you think social media use has a positive or negative impact on your mental health?
• Very positive
• Somewhat positive
• Somewhat negative
• Very negative
• In your opinion, which factors contribute to the negative impact of social media on mental health?
• Social comparison
• In your opinion, what interventions could be effective in reducing the negative impact of social media on mental health?
• Education on healthy social media use
• Counseling for mental health problems caused by social media
• Social media detox programs
• Regulation of social media use

Thank you for your participation!

Applications of Research Paper

Research papers have several applications in various fields, including:

• Advancing knowledge: Research papers contribute to the advancement of knowledge by generating new insights, theories, and findings that can inform future research and practice. They help to answer important questions, clarify existing knowledge, and identify areas that require further investigation.
• Informing policy: Research papers can inform policy decisions by providing evidence-based recommendations for policymakers. They can help to identify gaps in current policies, evaluate the effectiveness of interventions, and inform the development of new policies and regulations.
• Improving practice: Research papers can improve practice by providing evidence-based guidance for professionals in various fields, including medicine, education, business, and psychology. They can inform the development of best practices, guidelines, and standards of care that can improve outcomes for individuals and organizations.
• Educating students : Research papers are often used as teaching tools in universities and colleges to educate students about research methods, data analysis, and academic writing. They help students to develop critical thinking skills, research skills, and communication skills that are essential for success in many careers.
• Fostering collaboration: Research papers can foster collaboration among researchers, practitioners, and policymakers by providing a platform for sharing knowledge and ideas. They can facilitate interdisciplinary collaborations and partnerships that can lead to innovative solutions to complex problems.

When to Write Research Paper

Research papers are typically written when a person has completed a research project or when they have conducted a study and have obtained data or findings that they want to share with the academic or professional community. Research papers are usually written in academic settings, such as universities, but they can also be written in professional settings, such as research organizations, government agencies, or private companies.

Here are some common situations where a person might need to write a research paper:

• For academic purposes: Students in universities and colleges are often required to write research papers as part of their coursework, particularly in the social sciences, natural sciences, and humanities. Writing research papers helps students to develop research skills, critical thinking skills, and academic writing skills.
• For publication: Researchers often write research papers to publish their findings in academic journals or to present their work at academic conferences. Publishing research papers is an important way to disseminate research findings to the academic community and to establish oneself as an expert in a particular field.
• To inform policy or practice : Researchers may write research papers to inform policy decisions or to improve practice in various fields. Research findings can be used to inform the development of policies, guidelines, and best practices that can improve outcomes for individuals and organizations.
• To share new insights or ideas: Researchers may write research papers to share new insights or ideas with the academic or professional community. They may present new theories, propose new research methods, or challenge existing paradigms in their field.

Purpose of Research Paper

The purpose of a research paper is to present the results of a study or investigation in a clear, concise, and structured manner. Research papers are written to communicate new knowledge, ideas, or findings to a specific audience, such as researchers, scholars, practitioners, or policymakers. The primary purposes of a research paper are:

• To contribute to the body of knowledge : Research papers aim to add new knowledge or insights to a particular field or discipline. They do this by reporting the results of empirical studies, reviewing and synthesizing existing literature, proposing new theories, or providing new perspectives on a topic.
• To inform or persuade: Research papers are written to inform or persuade the reader about a particular issue, topic, or phenomenon. They present evidence and arguments to support their claims and seek to persuade the reader of the validity of their findings or recommendations.
• To advance the field: Research papers seek to advance the field or discipline by identifying gaps in knowledge, proposing new research questions or approaches, or challenging existing assumptions or paradigms. They aim to contribute to ongoing debates and discussions within a field and to stimulate further research and inquiry.
• To demonstrate research skills: Research papers demonstrate the author’s research skills, including their ability to design and conduct a study, collect and analyze data, and interpret and communicate findings. They also demonstrate the author’s ability to critically evaluate existing literature, synthesize information from multiple sources, and write in a clear and structured manner.

Characteristics of Research Paper

Research papers have several characteristics that distinguish them from other forms of academic or professional writing. Here are some common characteristics of research papers:

• Evidence-based: Research papers are based on empirical evidence, which is collected through rigorous research methods such as experiments, surveys, observations, or interviews. They rely on objective data and facts to support their claims and conclusions.
• Structured and organized: Research papers have a clear and logical structure, with sections such as introduction, literature review, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. They are organized in a way that helps the reader to follow the argument and understand the findings.
• Formal and objective: Research papers are written in a formal and objective tone, with an emphasis on clarity, precision, and accuracy. They avoid subjective language or personal opinions and instead rely on objective data and analysis to support their arguments.
• Citations and references: Research papers include citations and references to acknowledge the sources of information and ideas used in the paper. They use a specific citation style, such as APA, MLA, or Chicago, to ensure consistency and accuracy.
• Peer-reviewed: Research papers are often peer-reviewed, which means they are evaluated by other experts in the field before they are published. Peer-review ensures that the research is of high quality, meets ethical standards, and contributes to the advancement of knowledge in the field.
• Objective and unbiased: Research papers strive to be objective and unbiased in their presentation of the findings. They avoid personal biases or preconceptions and instead rely on the data and analysis to draw conclusions.

Advantages of Research Paper

Research papers have many advantages, both for the individual researcher and for the broader academic and professional community. Here are some advantages of research papers:

• Contribution to knowledge: Research papers contribute to the body of knowledge in a particular field or discipline. They add new information, insights, and perspectives to existing literature and help advance the understanding of a particular phenomenon or issue.
• Opportunity for intellectual growth: Research papers provide an opportunity for intellectual growth for the researcher. They require critical thinking, problem-solving, and creativity, which can help develop the researcher’s skills and knowledge.
• Career advancement: Research papers can help advance the researcher’s career by demonstrating their expertise and contributions to the field. They can also lead to new research opportunities, collaborations, and funding.
• Academic recognition: Research papers can lead to academic recognition in the form of awards, grants, or invitations to speak at conferences or events. They can also contribute to the researcher’s reputation and standing in the field.
• Impact on policy and practice: Research papers can have a significant impact on policy and practice. They can inform policy decisions, guide practice, and lead to changes in laws, regulations, or procedures.
• Advancement of society: Research papers can contribute to the advancement of society by addressing important issues, identifying solutions to problems, and promoting social justice and equality.

Limitations of Research Paper

Research papers also have some limitations that should be considered when interpreting their findings or implications. Here are some common limitations of research papers:

• Limited generalizability: Research findings may not be generalizable to other populations, settings, or contexts. Studies often use specific samples or conditions that may not reflect the broader population or real-world situations.
• Potential for bias : Research papers may be biased due to factors such as sample selection, measurement errors, or researcher biases. It is important to evaluate the quality of the research design and methods used to ensure that the findings are valid and reliable.
• Ethical concerns: Research papers may raise ethical concerns, such as the use of vulnerable populations or invasive procedures. Researchers must adhere to ethical guidelines and obtain informed consent from participants to ensure that the research is conducted in a responsible and respectful manner.
• Limitations of methodology: Research papers may be limited by the methodology used to collect and analyze data. For example, certain research methods may not capture the complexity or nuance of a particular phenomenon, or may not be appropriate for certain research questions.
• Publication bias: Research papers may be subject to publication bias, where positive or significant findings are more likely to be published than negative or non-significant findings. This can skew the overall findings of a particular area of research.
• Time and resource constraints: Research papers may be limited by time and resource constraints, which can affect the quality and scope of the research. Researchers may not have access to certain data or resources, or may be unable to conduct long-term studies due to practical limitations.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Research Results Section – Writing Guide and...

Research Objectives – Types, Examples and...

APA Table of Contents – Format and Example

Research Paper Format – Types, Examples and...

Research Questions – Types, Examples and Writing...

Limitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Unfortunately we don't fully support your browser. If you have the option to, please upgrade to a newer version or use Mozilla Firefox , Microsoft Edge , Google Chrome , or Safari 14 or newer. If you are unable to, and need support, please send us your feedback .

We'd appreciate your feedback. Tell us what you think! opens in new tab/window

Publish with Elsevier

Learn about the publication process and how to submit your manuscript. This tutorial will help you find the right journal and maximize the chance to be published.

Your step-by-step guide to publishing with Elsevier

Every year, we accept and publish more than 470,000 journal articles so you are in safe hands. Publishing in an Elsevier journal starts with finding the right journal for your paper. We have tools, resources and services to help you at each stage of the publication journey to enable you to research, write, publish, promote and track your article. Let us help you make the most out of your next publication!

1. Find a journal

Find out the journals that could be best suited for publishing your research. For a comprehensive list of Elsevier journals check our Journal Catalog . You can also match your manuscript using the JournalFinder tool, then learn more about each journal. You can find information about how to log in to each journal’s editorial system here .

JournalFinder

Search the world's leading source of academic journals for a list of recommended journals that best match your research paper. You can search by using your abstract, or by using keywords and other details .

Read the journal's aims and scope to make sure it is a match

Check whether you can submit — some journals are invitation only

Use journal metrics to understand the impact of a journal

If available, check the journal at Journal Insights opens in new tab/window for additional info about impact, speed and reach

2. Prepare your paper for submission

Download our  get published quick guide opens in new tab/window , which outlines the essential steps in preparing a paper. (This is also available in  Chinese opens in new tab/window ). It is very important that you stick to the specific "guide for authors" of the journal to which you are submitting. This can be found on the journal's home page.

You can find information about the publishing process in the understanding the publishing process opens in new tab/window guide. It covers topics such as authors' rights, ethics and plagiarism, and journal and article metrics.

If you have research data to share, make sure you read the guide for authors to find out which options the journal offers to share research data with your article.

Read about publishing in a special issue

Use an external editing service, such as Elsevier’s Author Services opens in new tab/window if you need assistance with language

Free e-learning modules on preparing your manuscript can be found on Researcher Academy opens in new tab/window

Mendeley opens in new tab/window makes your life easier by helping you organize your papers, citations and references, accessing them in the cloud on any device, wherever you are

3. Submit and revise

You can submit to most Elsevier journals using our online systems.  The system you use will depend on the journal to which you submit. You can access the relevant submission system via the "submit your paper" link on the Elsevier.com journal homepage of your chosen journal.

Alternatively, if you have been invited to submit to a journal, follow the instructions provided to you. Once submitted, your paper will be considered by the editor and if it passes initial screening, it will be sent for peer review by experts in your field. If deemed unsuitable for publication in your chosen journal, the editor may suggest you transfer your submission to a more suitable journal, via an article transfer service.

Check the open access options on the journal's homepage

Consider the options for sharing your research data

Be accurate and clear when checking your proofs

Inform yourself about copyright and licensing

4. Track your paper

Track your submitted paper.

You can track the status of your submitted paper online. The system you use to track your submission will be the same system to which you submitted. Use the reference number you received after submission to track your submission. Unsure about what the submission status means? Check out  this video opens in new tab/window .

In case of any problems, contact the Support Center opens in new tab/window .

Track your accepted paper

Once your paper is accepted for publication, you will receive a reference number and a direct link that lets you follow its publication status via Elsevier’s "Track Your Accepted Article" service.

Even without a notification you can track the status of your article by entering your article reference number and corresponding author surname in  Track your accepted article opens in new tab/window .

5. Share and promote

Now that your article is published, you can promote it to achieve a bigger impact for your research. Sharing research, accomplishments and ambitions with a wider audience makes you more visible in your field. This helps you get cited more, enabling you to cultivate a stronger reputation, promote your research and move forward in your career.

After publication, celebrate and  get noticed opens in new tab/window !

Unable to find the answer to your question? Visit our support center for more information on all Elsevier solutions.

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

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

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

Clara busse.

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

Ella August

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

Associated Data

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.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s13187-020-01751-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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 ​ Table1 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

Common introduction section pitfalls and recommendations

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 ​ Table2 2 provides common methods section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

Common methods section pitfalls and recommendations

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 ​ Table3 3 provides common results section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

Common results section pitfalls and recommendations

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 ​ Table4 4 provides common discussion section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

Common discussion section pitfalls and recommendations

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. ​ (Fig.3) 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

(PDF 362 kb)

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.

Data Availability

Compliance with ethical standards.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

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

• How to Publish a Research Paper: A Complete Guide
• Self Publishing Guide

Read:  Learn How to Write & Craft a Compelling Villain for Your Story.

• Step 1: Identifying the Right Journal
• Step 2: Preparing Step 3: Your Manuscript

Step 3: Conducting a Thorough Review

Step 4: Writing a Compelling Cover Letter

Step 5: Navigating the Peer Review Process

Step 6: Handling Rejections

Step 7: Preparing for Publication

Step 8: Promoting Your Published Paper

Step 1: Identifying the Right Journal 

The first step in publishing a research paper is crucial, as it sets the foundation for the entire publication process. Identifying the right journal involves carefully selecting a publication platform that aligns with your research topic, audience, and academic goals. Here are the key considerations to keep in mind during this step:

• Scope and Focus : Assess the scope and focus of your research to find journals that publish articles in your field of study. Look for journals that have previously published papers related to your topic or research area.
• Readership and Impact Factor : Consider the target audience of the journal and its readership. Higher-impact factor journals typically attract a broader readership and can enhance the visibility and credibility of your research.
• Publication Frequency : Investigate the publication frequency of the journal. Some journals publish issues monthly, quarterly, or annually. Choose a journal that aligns with your timeline for publication.
• Indexing and Reputation : Check if the journal is indexed in reputable databases, such as Scopus or PubMed. Indexed journals are more likely to be recognized and accessed by researchers worldwide.
• Journal Guidelines : Familiarise yourself with the journal’s submission guidelines, available on their website. Pay attention to manuscript length limits, reference styles, and formatting requirements.
• Open Access Options : Consider whether the journal offers open access publishing. Open-access journals allow unrestricted access to your paper, potentially increasing its visibility and impact.
• Ethical Considerations : Ensure the journal follows ethical publication practises and abides by industry standards. Verify if the journal is a member of reputable publishing organisations, such as COPE (the Committee on Publication Ethics).
• Publication Fees : Check if the journal charges any publication fees or article processing charges (APCs). These fees can vary significantly among journals and may influence your decision.
• Target Audience : Consider the journal’s target audience and the level of technical detail appropriate for that audience. Some journals cater to a more specialised readership, while others aim for a broader appeal.
• Journal Reputation : Research the reputation of the journal within your academic community. Seek advice from colleagues or mentors who have published in similar journals.

By carefully considering these factors, you can make an informed decision on the most suitable journal for your research paper. Selecting the right journal increases your chances of acceptance and ensures that your work reaches the intended audience, contributing to the advancement of knowledge in your field.

Step 2: Preparing Your Manuscript

After identifying the appropriate journal, the next step is to prepare your manuscript for submission. This stage involves meticulous attention to detail and adherence to the journal’s specific author guidelines. Here’s a comprehensive guide to preparing your manuscript:

• Read Author Guidelines : Carefully read and understand the journal’s author guidelines, which are available on the journal’s website. The guidelines provide instructions on manuscript preparation, the submission process, and formatting requirements.
• Manuscript Structure : Follow the standard structure for a research paper, including the abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion sections. Ensure that each section is clear and well-organised.
• Title and Abstract : Craft a concise and informative title that reflects the main focus of your research. The abstract should provide a summary of your study’s objectives, methods, results, and conclusions.
• Introduction : The introduction should introduce the research problem, provide context, and state the research objectives or questions. Engage readers by highlighting the significance of your research.
• Methodology : Describe the research design, data collection methods, and data analysis techniques used in your study. Provide sufficient detail to enable other researchers to replicate your study.
• Results : Present your findings in a clear and logical manner. Use tables, graphs, and figures to enhance the presentation of data. Avoid interpreting the results in this section.
• Discussion : Analyse and interpret your results in the discussion section. Relate your findings to the research objectives and previously published literature. Discuss the implications of your results and any limitations of your study.
• Conclusion : In the conclusion, summarise the key findings of your research and restate their significance. Avoid introducing new information in this section.
• Citations and References : Cite all sources accurately and consistently throughout the manuscript. Follow the journal’s preferred citation style, such as APA, MLA, or Chicago.
• Proofreading and Editing : Thoroughly proofread your manuscript to correct any grammatical errors, typos, or inconsistencies. Edit for clarity, conciseness, and logical flow.
• Figures and Tables : Ensure that all figures and tables are clear, properly labelled, and cited in the main text. Follow the journal’s guidelines for the formatting of figures and tables.
• Ethical Considerations : Include any necessary statements regarding ethical approval, conflicts of interest, or data availability, as required by the journal.

By meticulously preparing your manuscript and adhering to the journal’s guidelines, you increase the likelihood of a successful submission. A well-structured and polished manuscript enhances the readability and impact of your research, ultimately increasing your chances of acceptance for publication.

You may also like: How to Make Book Design More Appealing to the Reader

The process of conducting a thorough review of your research paper is a critical step in the publication journey. This step ensures that your work is polished, accurate, and ready for submission to a journal. A well-reviewed paper increases the chances of acceptance and demonstrates your commitment to producing high-quality research. Here are the key aspects to consider during the review process:

• Grammatical Errors and Typos : Start by carefully proofreading your paper for any grammatical errors, typos, or spelling mistakes. Even minor errors can undermine the credibility of your research and distract readers from your main points. Use grammar-checking tools, but also read your paper line by line to catch any issues that zated tools might miss.
• Consistency and Clarity : Ensure that your writing is consistent throughout the paper. Check that you have used the same terminology, abbreviations, and formatting consistently. Additionally, pay attention to sentence structure and coherence, making sure that each paragraph flows logically into the next.
• Accuracy of Data, Graphs, and Tables : Review all the data presented in your research, including figures, graphs, and tables. Verify that the data is accurate, correctly labelled, and represented in a clear and understandable manner. Any errors in data representation can lead to misinterpretations and undermine the reliability of your findings.
• Citation and Referencing : Verify that all the sources you have cited are accurate and properly formatted according to the citation style required by the target journal. Missing or incorrect citations can lead to accusations of plagiarism and harm the integrity of your work.
• Addressing Feedback : If you have received feedback from colleagues, mentors, or peer reviewers during the pre-submission process, carefully consider their suggestions and address any concerns raised. Engaging with feedback shows your willingness to improve and strengthen your paper.
• Objective Evaluation : Try to read your paper with a critical eye, as if you were a reviewer assessing its merits. Identify any weaknesses or areas that could be improved, both in terms of content and presentation. Be open to rewriting or restructuring sections that could benefit from further clarity or depth.
• Seek Feedback : To ensure the highest quality, seek feedback from colleagues or mentors who are knowledgeable in your research field. They can provide valuable insights and offer suggestions for improvement. Peer review can identify blind spots and help you refine your arguments.
• Formatting and Guidelines : Review the journal’s specific formatting and submission guidelines. Adhering to these requirements demonstrates your attention to detail and increases the likelihood of acceptance.

In conclusion, conducting a thorough review of your research paper is an essential step before submission. It involves checking for grammatical errors, ensuring clarity and consistency, verifying data accuracy, addressing feedback, and seeking external input. A well-reviewed paper enhances its chances of publication and contributes to the overall credibility of your research.

The cover letter is your opportunity to make a strong first impression on the journal’s editor and to persuade them that your research paper is a valuable contribution to their publication. It serves as a bridge between your work and the editor, highlighting the significance and originality of your study and explaining why it is a good fit for the journal. Here are the key elements to include in a compelling cover letter:

• Introduction : Start the letter with a professional and cordial greeting, addressing the editor by their name if possible. Introduce yourself and provide your affiliation, including your academic title and institution. Mention the title of your research paper and its co-authors, if any.
• Brief Summary of Research : Provide a concise and compelling summary of your research. Clearly state the research question or problem you addressed, the methodology you employed, and your main findings. Emphasise the significance of your research and its potential impact on the field.
• Highlight Originality : Explain what sets your study apart from existing research in the field. Highlight the original contributions your paper makes, whether it’s a novel approach, new insights, or addressing a gap in the literature. Demonstrating the novelty of your work will capture the editor’s attention.
• Fit with the Journal : Explain why your research is a good fit for the target journal. Refer to recent articles published in the journal that are related to your topic and discuss how your research complements or extends those works. Aligning your paper with the journal’s scope and objectives enhances your chances of acceptance.
• Addressing Specific Points : If the journal’s author guidelines include specific requirements, address them in your cover letter. This shows that you have read and followed their guidelines carefully. For example, if the journal requires you to highlight the practical implications of your research, briefly mention these in your letter.
• Previous Engagement : If you have presented your research at a conference, workshop, or seminar, or if it has been previously reviewed (e.g., as a preprint), mention it in the cover letter. This indicates that your work has already undergone some scrutiny and may strengthen its appeal to the journal.
• Declaration of Originality : State that the paper is original, has not been published elsewhere, and is not under simultaneous consideration by any other publication. This declaration reassures the editor that your work meets the journal’s submission policies.
• Contact Information : Provide your contact details, including email and phone number, and express your willingness to address any queries or provide additional information if needed.
• Expression of Gratitude : Thank the editor for their time and consideration in reviewing your submission.

In conclusion, a well-crafted cover letter complements your research paper and convinces the journal’s editor of the significance and originality of your work. It should provide a succinct overview of your research, highlight its relevance to the journal’s scope, and address any specific points raised in the author guidelines. A compelling cover letter increases the likelihood of your paper being seriously considered for publication.

You may also like: International Publishing: Expanding Your Reach Beyond Borders

The peer review process is a crucial step in scholarly publishing, designed to ensure the quality, accuracy, and validity of research papers before they are accepted for publication. After you submit your manuscript to a journal, it is sent to peer reviewers who are experts in your field. These reviewers carefully assess your work, providing feedback and recommendations to the editor. Navigating the peer review process requires patience, open-mindedness, and a willingness to engage constructively with reviewers. Here’s a detailed explanation of this step:

• Submission and Assignment : Once you submit your paper, the journal’s editorial team performs an initial screening to check if it aligns with the journal’s scope and guidelines. If it does, the editor assigns peer reviewers who have expertise in the subject matter of your research.
• Reviewing Process : The peer reviewers evaluate your paper’s methodology, data analysis, conclusions, and overall contribution to the field. They may assess the clarity of your writing, the strength of your arguments, and the relevance of your findings. Reviewers also look for potential flaws or limitations in your study.
• Reviewer Feedback : After the reviewers have thoroughly examined your paper, they provide feedback to the editor. The feedback usually falls into three categories: acceptance, revision, or rejection. In the case of a revision, reviewers may specify the changes they believe are necessary for the paper to meet the journal’s standards.
• Editor’s Decision : Based on the reviewers’ feedback, the editor makes a decision about your paper. The decision could be acceptance, conditional acceptance pending minor revisions, major revisions, or rejection. Even if your paper is rejected, remember that the peer review process provides valuable feedback that can help improve your research.
• Responding to Reviewer Comments : If your paper requires revisions, carefully read the reviewer comments and suggestions. Address each comment in a respectful and diligent manner, providing clear responses and incorporating the necessary changes into your manuscript.
• Revised Manuscript Submission : Submit the revised version of your paper along with a detailed response to the reviewers’ comments. Explain the changes you made and how you addressed their concerns. This demonstrates your commitment to enhancing the quality of your research.
• Reiteration of the Review Process : Depending on the revisions, the editor may send your paper back to the same reviewers or to new reviewers for a second round of evaluation. This process continues until the paper is either accepted for publication or deemed unsuitable for the journal.
• Acceptance and Publication : If your paper successfully navigates the peer review process and meets the journal’s standards, it will be accepted for publication. Congratulations on reaching this milestone!

In conclusion, the peer review process is an essential part of academic publishing. It involves expert evaluation of your research by peers in the field, who provide valuable feedback to improve the quality and rigour of your paper. Embrace the feedback with an open mind, respond diligently to reviewer comments, and be patient during the review process. Navigating peer review is a collaborative effort to ensure that only high-quality and significant research contributes to the scholarly community.

Receiving a rejection of your research paper can be disheartening, but it is a common and normal part of the publication process. It’s important to remember that rejection does not necessarily reflect the quality of your work; many groundbreaking studies have faced rejection before finding the right publication platform. Handling rejections requires resilience, a growth mindset, and the willingness to learn from the feedback. Here’s a comprehensive explanation of this step:

• Understanding the Decision : When you receive a rejection, take the time to carefully read the editor’s decision letter and the feedback provided by the peer reviewers. Understand the reasons for the rejection and the specific concerns raised about your paper.
• Embrace Constructive Feedback : Peer reviewer comments can provide valuable insights into the strengths and weaknesses of your research. Embrace the feedback constructively, recognising that it presents an opportunity to improve your work.
• Assessing Revisions : If the decision letter includes suggestions for revisions, carefully consider whether you agree with them. Evaluate if implementing these revisions aligns with your research goals and the core message of your paper.
• Revising the Manuscript : If you decide to make revisions based on the feedback, thoroughly address the reviewer’s comments and consider making any necessary improvements to your research. Pay close attention to the areas identified by the reviewers as needing improvement.
• Resubmission or Alternative Journals : After revising your manuscript, you have the option to either resubmit it to the same journal (if allowed) or consider submitting it to a different journal. If you choose the latter, ensure that the new journal aligns with your research topic and scope.
• Tailoring the Submission : When submitting to a different journal, tailor your manuscript and cover letter to fit the specific requirements and preferences of that journal. Highlight the relevance of your research to the journal’s readership and address any unique guidelines they have.
• Don’t Lose Hope : Rejections are a natural part of the publication process, and many researchers face them at some point in their careers. It is essential not to lose hope and to remain persistent in pursuing publication opportunities.
• Learn and Improve : Use the feedback from the rejection as a learning experience. Identify areas for improvement in your research, writing, and presentation. This will help you grow as a researcher and improve your chances of acceptance in the future.
• Seek Support and Guidance : If you are struggling to navigate the publication process or interpret reviewer comments, seek support from colleagues, mentors, or academic advisors. Their insights can provide valuable guidance and encouragement.

In conclusion, handling rejections is a normal part of the publication journey. Approach rejection with a growth mindset, embracing the feedback provided by reviewers as an opportunity to improve your research. Revise your manuscript diligently, and consider submitting it to other journals that align with your research. Remember that persistence, learning from feedback, and seeking support are key to achieving success in the scholarly publishing process.

Unlocking Success: How to Sell Books Online Effectively

After successfully navigating the peer review process and receiving acceptance for your research paper, you are one step closer to seeing your work published in a reputable journal. However, before your paper can be published, you need to prepare it for production according to the journal’s specific requirements. This step is essential to ensuring that your paper meets the journal’s formatting and style guidelines and is ready for dissemination to the academic community. Here’s a comprehensive explanation of this step:

• Reviewing the Acceptance Letter : Start by carefully reviewing the acceptance letter from the journal’s editor. This letter will outline any final comments or suggestions from the reviewers that need to be addressed before publication.
• Addressing Reviewer Comments : If there are any outstanding revisions or clarifications requested by the reviewers, address them promptly and thoroughly. Reviewer feedback plays a crucial role in enhancing the quality and clarity of your paper, so it’s essential to give each comment due attention.
• Adhering to Journal Guidelines : Familiarise yourself with the journal’s production requirements and guidelines for formatting, referencing, and figure preparation. Ensure that your paper adheres to these guidelines to avoid delays in the publication process.
• Finalising the Manuscript : Once all revisions have been made and the paper aligns with the journal’s requirements, finalise your manuscript. Carefully proofread the entire paper to catch any remaining grammatical errors or typos.
• Handling Permissions and Copyright : If your paper includes copyrighted material (e.g., figures, tables, or excerpts from other publications), obtain permission from the original copyright holders to reproduce that content in your paper. This is crucial to avoid potential copyright infringement issues.
• Completing Authorship and Affiliation Details : Verify that all authors’ names, affiliations, and contact information are accurate and consistent. Ensure that the corresponding author is clearly identified for communication with the journal during the publication process.
• Submitting the Final Manuscript : Follow the journal’s instructions to submit the final version of your manuscript along with any required supplementary materials. This may include high-resolution figures, data sets, or additional supporting information.
• Waiting for Publication : After submitting the final version, the journal’s production team will work on typesetting, formatting, and preparing your paper for publication. This process may take some time, depending on the journal’s workflow and schedule.
• Proofing and Corrections : Once the typeset proof is ready, carefully review it for any formatting errors or typographical mistakes. Respond to the journal promptly with any necessary corrections or clarifications.
• Copyright Transfer : If required by the journal, complete the copyright transfer agreement, granting the publisher the right to publish and distribute your work.
• Publication Date and DOI : Your paper will be assigned a publication date and a Digital Object Identifier (DOI), a unique alphanumeric string that provides a permanent link to your paper, making it easily accessible and citable.

In conclusion, preparing your research paper for publication involves carefully addressing reviewer comments, adhering to journal guidelines, handling permissions and copyright issues, and submitting the final version for production. Thoroughly reviewing and finalising your paper will ensure its readiness for dissemination to the academic community.

Congratulations on successfully publishing your research paper! Now, it’s time to promote your work to reach a broader audience and increase its visibility within the academic and research communities. Effective promotion can lead to more citations, recognition, and potential collaborations. Here’s a comprehensive explanation of this step:

• Share on Social Media : Utilise social media platforms to announce the publication of your paper. Share the title, abstract, and a link to the paper on your professional profiles, such as  LinkedIn ,  Twitter , or  ResearchGate . Engage with your followers to generate interest and discussion.
• Collaborate with Colleagues : Collaborate with your co-authors and colleagues to promote the paper collectively. Encourage them to share the publication on their social media and academic networks. A collaborative effort can increase the paper’s visibility and reach.
• Academic Networks and Research Platforms : Upload your paper to academic networks and research platforms like Academia.edu, Mendeley, or Google Scholar. This allows other researchers to discover and cite your work more easily.
• Email and Newsletters : Inform your professional contacts and research network about the publication through email announcements or newsletters. Consider writing a brief summary of your paper’s key findings and significance to entice readers to access the full paper.
• Research Blog or Website : If you have a personal research blog or website, create a dedicated post announcing the publication. Provide a summary of your research and its implications in a reader-friendly format.
• Engage with the Academic Community : Participate in academic conferences, workshops, and seminars to present your research. Networking with other researchers and sharing your findings in person can create buzz around your paper.
• Press Releases : If your research has practical implications or societal relevance, consider working with your institution’s press office to issue a press release about your paper. This can attract media attention and increase public awareness.
• Academic and Research Forums : Engage in online academic and research forums to discuss your findings and share insights. Be active in relevant discussions to establish yourself as an expert in your field.
• Researcher Profiles : Keep your researcher profiles, such as those on Google Scholar, ORCID, and Scopus, updated with your latest publications. This ensures that your paper is indexed and visible to other researchers searching for related work.
• Altmetrics : Monitor the altmetrics of your paper to track its online attention, including mentions, downloads, and social media shares. Altmetrics provide additional metrics beyond traditional citations, giving you insights into your paper’s broader impact.
• Engage with Feedback : Respond to comments and questions from readers who engage with your paper. Engaging in scholarly discussions can further promote your work and demonstrate your expertise in the field.

In conclusion, promoting your published paper is an essential step to increasing its visibility, impact, and potential for further collaboration. Utilise social media, academic networks, collaborations with colleagues, and engagement with the academic community to create interest in your work. Effective promotion can lead to more citations and recognition, enhancing the overall impact of your research.

Read: Here’s a list of 10 best short story books to read in 2023 that you can’t miss.

Publishing a research paper is a rewarding experience that requires dedication, perseverance, and attention to detail. By following this essential guide, you can navigate the publication process successfully and contribute valuable knowledge to your field of study.

Remember, each publication is a stepping stone in your academic journey, and even rejections provide opportunities for growth. Embrace the process, continue refining your research, and celebrate your contributions to advancing scientific knowledge. Good luck on your journey to academic success!

• About The Author
• Latest Posts

Manan Sahni

You May Also Like

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Research paper

How to Write a Research Paper | A Beginner's Guide

A research paper is a piece of academic writing that provides analysis, interpretation, and argument based on in-depth independent research.

Research papers are similar to academic essays , but they are usually longer and more detailed assignments, designed to assess not only your writing skills but also your skills in scholarly research. Writing a research paper requires you to demonstrate a strong knowledge of your topic, engage with a variety of sources, and make an original contribution to the debate.

This step-by-step guide takes you through the entire writing process, from understanding your assignment to proofreading your final draft.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

Understand the assignment, choose a research paper topic, conduct preliminary research, develop a thesis statement, create a research paper outline, write a first draft of the research paper, write the introduction, write a compelling body of text, write the conclusion, the second draft, the revision process, research paper checklist, free lecture slides.

Completing a research paper successfully means accomplishing the specific tasks set out for you. Before you start, make sure you thoroughly understanding the assignment task sheet:

• Read it carefully, looking for anything confusing you might need to clarify with your professor.
• Identify the assignment goal, deadline, length specifications, formatting, and submission method.
• Make a bulleted list of the key points, then go back and cross completed items off as you’re writing.

Carefully consider your timeframe and word limit: be realistic, and plan enough time to research, write, and edit.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

There are many ways to generate an idea for a research paper, from brainstorming with pen and paper to talking it through with a fellow student or professor.

You can try free writing, which involves taking a broad topic and writing continuously for two or three minutes to identify absolutely anything relevant that could be interesting.

You can also gain inspiration from other research. The discussion or recommendations sections of research papers often include ideas for other specific topics that require further examination.

Once you have a broad subject area, narrow it down to choose a topic that interests you, m eets the criteria of your assignment, and i s possible to research. Aim for ideas that are both original and specific:

• A paper following the chronology of World War II would not be original or specific enough.
• A paper on the experience of Danish citizens living close to the German border during World War II would be specific and could be original enough.

Note any discussions that seem important to the topic, and try to find an issue that you can focus your paper around. Use a variety of sources , including journals, books, and reliable websites, to ensure you do not miss anything glaring.

Do not only verify the ideas you have in mind, but look for sources that contradict your point of view.

• Is there anything people seem to overlook in the sources you research?
• Are there any heated debates you can address?
• Do you have a unique take on your topic?
• Have there been some recent developments that build on the extant research?

In this stage, you might find it helpful to formulate some research questions to help guide you. To write research questions, try to finish the following sentence: “I want to know how/what/why…”

A thesis statement is a statement of your central argument — it establishes the purpose and position of your paper. If you started with a research question, the thesis statement should answer it. It should also show what evidence and reasoning you’ll use to support that answer.

The thesis statement should be concise, contentious, and coherent. That means it should briefly summarize your argument in a sentence or two, make a claim that requires further evidence or analysis, and make a coherent point that relates to every part of the paper.

You will probably revise and refine the thesis statement as you do more research, but it can serve as a guide throughout the writing process. Every paragraph should aim to support and develop this central claim.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

A research paper outline is essentially a list of the key topics, arguments, and evidence you want to include, divided into sections with headings so that you know roughly what the paper will look like before you start writing.

A structure outline can help make the writing process much more efficient, so it’s worth dedicating some time to create one.

Your first draft won’t be perfect — you can polish later on. Your priorities at this stage are as follows:

• Maintaining forward momentum — write now, perfect later.
• Paying attention to clear organization and logical ordering of paragraphs and sentences, which will help when you come to the second draft.
• Expressing your ideas as clearly as possible, so you know what you were trying to say when you come back to the text.

You do not need to start by writing the introduction. Begin where it feels most natural for you — some prefer to finish the most difficult sections first, while others choose to start with the easiest part. If you created an outline, use it as a map while you work.

Do not delete large sections of text. If you begin to dislike something you have written or find it doesn’t quite fit, move it to a different document, but don’t lose it completely — you never know if it might come in useful later.

Paragraph structure

Paragraphs are the basic building blocks of research papers. Each one should focus on a single claim or idea that helps to establish the overall argument or purpose of the paper.

Example paragraph

George Orwell’s 1946 essay “Politics and the English Language” has had an enduring impact on thought about the relationship between politics and language. This impact is particularly obvious in light of the various critical review articles that have recently referenced the essay. For example, consider Mark Falcoff’s 2009 article in The National Review Online, “The Perversion of Language; or, Orwell Revisited,” in which he analyzes several common words (“activist,” “civil-rights leader,” “diversity,” and more). Falcoff’s close analysis of the ambiguity built into political language intentionally mirrors Orwell’s own point-by-point analysis of the political language of his day. Even 63 years after its publication, Orwell’s essay is emulated by contemporary thinkers.

Citing sources

It’s also important to keep track of citations at this stage to avoid accidental plagiarism . Each time you use a source, make sure to take note of where the information came from.

You can use our free citation generators to automatically create citations and save your reference list as you go.

APA Citation Generator MLA Citation Generator

The research paper introduction should address three questions: What, why, and how? After finishing the introduction, the reader should know what the paper is about, why it is worth reading, and how you’ll build your arguments.

What? Be specific about the topic of the paper, introduce the background, and define key terms or concepts.

Why? This is the most important, but also the most difficult, part of the introduction. Try to provide brief answers to the following questions: What new material or insight are you offering? What important issues does your essay help define or answer?

How? To let the reader know what to expect from the rest of the paper, the introduction should include a “map” of what will be discussed, briefly presenting the key elements of the paper in chronological order.

The major struggle faced by most writers is how to organize the information presented in the paper, which is one reason an outline is so useful. However, remember that the outline is only a guide and, when writing, you can be flexible with the order in which the information and arguments are presented.

One way to stay on track is to use your thesis statement and topic sentences . Check:

• topic sentences against the thesis statement;
• topic sentences against each other, for similarities and logical ordering;
• and each sentence against the topic sentence of that paragraph.

Be aware of paragraphs that seem to cover the same things. If two paragraphs discuss something similar, they must approach that topic in different ways. Aim to create smooth transitions between sentences, paragraphs, and sections.

The research paper conclusion is designed to help your reader out of the paper’s argument, giving them a sense of finality.

Trace the course of the paper, emphasizing how it all comes together to prove your thesis statement. Give the paper a sense of finality by making sure the reader understands how you’ve settled the issues raised in the introduction.

You might also discuss the more general consequences of the argument, outline what the paper offers to future students of the topic, and suggest any questions the paper’s argument raises but cannot or does not try to answer.

You should not :

• Offer new arguments or essential information
• Take up any more space than necessary
• Begin with stock phrases that signal you are ending the paper (e.g. “In conclusion”)

There are four main considerations when it comes to the second draft.

• Check how your vision of the paper lines up with the first draft and, more importantly, that your paper still answers the assignment.
• Identify any assumptions that might require (more substantial) justification, keeping your reader’s perspective foremost in mind. Remove these points if you cannot substantiate them further.
• Be open to rearranging your ideas. Check whether any sections feel out of place and whether your ideas could be better organized.
• If you find that old ideas do not fit as well as you anticipated, you should cut them out or condense them. You might also find that new and well-suited ideas occurred to you during the writing of the first draft — now is the time to make them part of the paper.

The goal during the revision and proofreading process is to ensure you have completed all the necessary tasks and that the paper is as well-articulated as possible. You can speed up the proofreading process by using the AI proofreader .

Global concerns

• Confirm that your paper completes every task specified in your assignment sheet.
• Check for logical organization and flow of paragraphs.
• Check paragraphs against the introduction and thesis statement.

Fine-grained details

Check the content of each paragraph, making sure that:

• each sentence helps support the topic sentence.
• no unnecessary or irrelevant information is present.
• all technical terms your audience might not know are identified.

Next, think about sentence structure , grammatical errors, and formatting . Check that you have correctly used transition words and phrases to show the connections between your ideas. Look for typos, cut unnecessary words, and check for consistency in aspects such as heading formatting and spellings .

Finally, you need to make sure your paper is correctly formatted according to the rules of the citation style you are using. For example, you might need to include an MLA heading  or create an APA title page .

Scribbr’s professional editors can help with the revision process with our award-winning proofreading services.

Discover our paper editing service

Checklist: Research paper

I have followed all instructions in the assignment sheet.

My introduction presents my topic in an engaging way and provides necessary background information.

My introduction presents a clear, focused research problem and/or thesis statement .

My paper is logically organized using paragraphs and (if relevant) section headings .

Each paragraph is clearly focused on one central idea, expressed in a clear topic sentence .

Each paragraph is relevant to my research problem or thesis statement.

I have used appropriate transitions  to clarify the connections between sections, paragraphs, and sentences.

My conclusion provides a concise answer to the research question or emphasizes how the thesis has been supported.

My conclusion shows how my research has contributed to knowledge or understanding of my topic.

My conclusion does not present any new points or information essential to my argument.

I have provided an in-text citation every time I refer to ideas or information from a source.

I have included a reference list at the end of my paper, consistently formatted according to a specific citation style .

I have thoroughly revised my paper and addressed any feedback from my professor or supervisor.

I have followed all formatting guidelines (page numbers, headers, spacing, etc.).

You've written a great paper. Make sure it's perfect with the help of a Scribbr editor!

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

Is this article helpful?

Other students also liked.

• Writing a Research Paper Introduction | Step-by-Step Guide
• Writing a Research Paper Conclusion | Step-by-Step Guide
• Research Paper Format | APA, MLA, & Chicago Templates

More interesting articles

• Academic Paragraph Structure | Step-by-Step Guide & Examples
• Checklist: Writing a Great Research Paper
• How to Create a Structured Research Paper Outline | Example
• How to Write a Discussion Section | Tips & Examples
• How to Write Recommendations in Research | Examples & Tips
• How to Write Topic Sentences | 4 Steps, Examples & Purpose
• Research Paper Appendix | Example & Templates
• Research Paper Damage Control | Managing a Broken Argument
• What Is a Theoretical Framework? | Guide to Organizing

"I thought AI Proofreading was useless but.."

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

• Insights blog

How to publish your research

A step-by-step guide to getting published.

Publishing your research is an important step in your academic career. While there isn’t a one-size-fits-all approach, this guide is designed to take you through the typical steps in publishing a research paper.

Discover how to get your paper published, from choosing the right journal and understanding what a peer reviewed article is, to responding to reviewers and navigating the production process.

Step 1: Choosing a journal

Choosing which journal to publish your research paper in is one of the most significant decisions you have to make as a researcher. Where you decide to submit your work can make a big difference to the reach and impact your research has.

It’s important to take your time to consider your options carefully and analyze each aspect of journal submission – from shortlisting titles to your preferred method of publication, for example open access .

Don’t forget to think about publishing options beyond the traditional journals format – for example, open research platform F1000Research , which offers rapid, open publication for a wide range of outputs.

Why choose your target journal before you start writing?

The first step in publishing a research paper should always be selecting the journal you want to publish in. Choosing your target journal before you start writing means you can tailor your work to build on research that’s already been published in that journal. This can help editors to see how a paper adds to the ‘conversation’ in their journal.

In addition, many journals only accept specific manuscript formats of article. So, by choosing a journal before you start, you can write your article to their specifications and audience, and ultimately improve your chances of acceptance.

To save time and for peace of mind, you can consider using manuscript formatting experts while you focus on your research.

How to select the journal to publish your research in

Choosing which journal to publish your research in can seem like an overwhelming task. So, for all the details of how to navigate this important step in publishing your research paper, take a look at our choosing a journal guide . This will take you through the selection process, from understanding the aims and scope of the journals you’re interested in to making sure you choose a trustworthy journal.

Don’t forget to explore our Journal Suggester to see which Taylor & Francis journals could be right for your research.

Go to guidance on choosing a journal

Step 2: Writing your paper

Writing an effective, compelling research paper  is vital to getting your research published. But if you’re new to putting together academic papers, it can feel daunting to start from scratch.

The good news is that if you’ve chosen the journal you want to publish in, you’ll have lots of examples already published in that journal to base your own paper on. We’ve gathered advice on every aspect of writing your paper, to make sure you get off to a great start.

How to write your paper

How you write your paper will depend on your chosen journal, your subject area, and the type of paper you’re writing. Everything from the style and structure you choose to the audience you should have in mind while writing will differ, so it’s important to think about these things before you get stuck in.

Our  writing your paper guidance  will take you through everything you need to know to put together your research article and prepare it for submission. This includes getting to know your target journal, understanding your audiences, and how to choose appropriate keywords.

You can also use this guide to take you through your research publication journey .

You should also make sure you’re aware of all the Editorial Policies  for the journal you plan to submit to. Don’t forget that you can contact our  editing services  to help you refine your manuscript.

Discover advice and guidance for writing your paper

Step 3: Making your submission

Once you’ve chosen the right journal and written your manuscript, the next step in publishing your research paper is  to make your submission .

Each journal will have specific submission requirements, so make sure you visit  Taylor & Francis Online  and carefully check through the  instructions for authors  for your chosen journal.

How to submit your manuscript

To submit your manuscript you’ll need to ensure that you’ve gone through all the steps in our  making your submission  guide. This includes thoroughly understanding your chosen journal’s instructions for authors, writing an effective cover letter, navigating the journal’s submission system, and making sure your research data is prepared as required.

You can also  improve your submission experience  with our guide to avoid obstacles and complete a seamless submission.

To make sure you’ve covered everything before you hit ‘submit’ you can also take a look at our  ‘ready to submit’ checklist  (don’t forget, you should only submit to one journal at a time).

Understand the process of making your submission

Step 4: Navigating the peer review process

Now you’ve submitted your manuscript, you need to get to grips with one of the most important parts of publishing your research paper –  the peer review process .

What is peer review?

Peer review is the independent assessment of your research article by independent experts in your field. Reviewers, also sometimes called ‘referees’, are asked to judge the validity, significance, and originality of your work.

This process ensures that a peer-reviewed article has been through a rigorous process to make sure the methodology is sound, the work can be replicated, and it fits with the aims and scope of the journal that is considering it for publication. It acts as an important form of quality control for research papers.

Peer review is also a very useful source of feedback, helping you to improve your paper before it’s published. It is intended to be a collaborative process, where authors engage in a dialogue with their peers and receive constructive feedback and support to advance their work.

Almost all research articles go through peer review, although in some cases the journal may operate post-publication peer review, which means that reviews and reader comments are invited after the paper is published.

If you’ll like to feel more confident before getting your work peer reviewed by the journal, you may want to consider using an  in-depth technical review service from experts.

Understanding peer review

Peer review can be a complex process to get your head around. That’s why we’ve put together a  comprehensive guide to understanding peer review . This explains everything from the many different types of peer review to the step-by-step peer review process and how to revise your manuscript. It also has helpful advice on what to do if your manuscript is rejected.

Visit our peer review guide for authors

Step 5: The production process

If your paper is accepted for publication, it will then head into  production . At this stage of the process, the paper will be prepared for publishing in your chosen journal.

A lot of the work to produce the final version of your paper will be done by the journal production team, but your input will be required at various stages of the process.

What do you need to do during production?

During production, you’ll have a variety of tasks to complete and decisions to make. For example, you’ll need to check and correct proofs of your article and consider whether or not you want to  produce a video abstract  to accompany it.

Take a look at  our guide to the production process  to find out what you’ll need to do in this final step to getting your research published.

Your research is published – now what?

You’ve successfully navigated publishing a research paper – congratulations! But the process doesn’t stop there. Now your research is published in a journal for the world to see, you’ll need to know  how to access your article  and  make sure it has an impact .

Here’s a  quick tip on how to boost your research impact  by investing in making your accomplishments stand out.

Below you’ll find helpful tips and post-publication support. From how to communicate about your research to how to request corrections or translations.

How to access your published article

When you publish with Taylor & Francis, you’ll have access to a new section on Taylor & Francis Online called  Authored Works . This will give you and all other named authors perpetual access to your article, regardless of whether or not you have a subscription to the journal you have published in.

You can also  order print copies of your article .

How to make sure your research has an impact

Taking the time to make sure your research has an impact can help drive your career progression, build your networks, and secure funding for new research. So, it’s worth investing in.

Creating a real impact with your work can be a challenging and time-consuming task, which can feel difficult to fit into an already demanding academic career.

To help you understand what impact means for you and your work, take a look at  our guide to research impact . It covers why impact is important, the different types of impact you can have, how to achieve impact – including tips on communicating with a variety of audiences – and how to measure your success.

Keeping track of your article’s progress

Through your  Authored Works access , you’ll be able to get real-time insights about your article, such as views, downloads and citation numbers.

In addition, when you publish an article with us, you’ll be offered the option to sign up for email updates. These emails will be sent to you three, six and twelve months after your article is published to let you know how many views and citations the article has had.

Corrections and translations of published articles

Sometimes after an article has been published it may be necessary to make a change to the  Version of Record . Take a look at our dedicated  guide to corrections, expressions of concern, retractions and removals  to find out more.

You may also be interested in translating your article into another language. If that’s the case, take a look at our  information on article translations .

Go to your guide on moving through production

Explore related posts

Insights topic: Get published

Use a trusted editing service to help you get published

5 practical tips for writing an academic article 

5 ways to avoid the wrong journal and find the right one

You are using an outdated browser . Please upgrade your browser today !

How to Write and Publish a Research Paper in 7 Steps

What comes next after you're done with your research? Publishing the results in a journal of course! We tell you how to present your work in the best way possible.

This post is part of a series, which serves to provide hands-on information and resources for authors and editors.

Things have gotten busy in scholarly publishing: These days, a new article gets published in the 50,000 most important peer-reviewed journals every few seconds, while each one takes on average 40 minutes to read. Hundreds of thousands of papers reach the desks of editors and reviewers worldwide each year and 50% of all submissions end up rejected at some stage.

In a nutshell: there is a lot of competition, and the people who decide upon the fate of your manuscript are short on time and overworked. But there are ways to make their lives a little easier and improve your own chances of getting your work published!

Well, it may seem obvious, but before submitting an academic paper, always make sure that it is an excellent reflection of the research you have done and that you present it in the most professional way possible. Incomplete or poorly presented manuscripts can create a great deal of frustration and annoyance for editors who probably won’t even bother wasting the time of the reviewers!

This post will discuss 7 steps to the successful publication of your research paper:

• Check whether your research is publication-ready
• Choose an article type
• Choose a journal
• Construct your paper
• Decide the order of authors
• Check and double-check
• Submit your paper

1. Check Whether Your Research Is Publication-Ready

Should you publish your research at all?

If your work holds academic value – of course – a well-written scholarly article could open doors to your research community. However, if you are not yet sure, whether your research is ready for publication, here are some key questions to ask yourself depending on your field of expertise:

• Have you done or found something new and interesting? Something unique?
• Is the work directly related to a current hot topic?
• Have you checked the latest results or research in the field?
• Have you provided solutions to any difficult problems?
• Have the findings been verified?
• Have the appropriate controls been performed if required?
• Are your findings comprehensive?

If the answers to all relevant questions are “yes”, you need to prepare a good, strong manuscript. Remember, a research paper is only useful if it is clearly understood, reproducible and if it is read and used .

2. Choose An Article Type

The first step is to determine which type of paper is most appropriate for your work and what you want to achieve. The following list contains the most important, usually peer-reviewed article types in the natural sciences:

Full original research papers disseminate completed research findings. On average this type of paper is 8-10 pages long, contains five figures, and 25-30 references. Full original research papers are an important part of the process when developing your career.

Review papers present a critical synthesis of a specific research topic. These papers are usually much longer than original papers and will contain numerous references. More often than not, they will be commissioned by journal editors. Reviews present an excellent way to solidify your research career.

Letters, Rapid or Short Communications are often published for the quick and early communication of significant and original advances. They are much shorter than full articles and usually limited in length by the journal. Journals specifically dedicated to short communications or letters are also published in some fields. In these the authors can present short preliminary findings before developing a full-length paper.

3. Choose a Journal

Are you looking for the right place to publish your paper? Find out here whether a De Gruyter journal might be the right fit.

Submit to journals that you already read, that you have a good feel for. If you do so, you will have a better appreciation of both its culture and the requirements of the editors and reviewers.

Other factors to consider are:

• The specific subject area
• The aims and scope of the journal
• The type of manuscript you have written
• The significance of your work
• The reputation of the journal
• The reputation of the editors within the community
• The editorial/review and production speeds of the journal
• The community served by the journal
• The coverage and distribution
• The accessibility ( open access vs. closed access)

4. Construct Your Paper

Each element of a paper has its purpose, so you should make these sections easy to index and search.

Don’t forget that requirements can differ highly per publication, so always make sure to apply a journal’s specific instructions – or guide – for authors to your manuscript, even to the first draft (text layout, paper citation, nomenclature, figures and table, etc.) It will save you time, and the editor’s.

Also, even in these days of Internet-based publishing, space is still at a premium, so be as concise as possible. As a good journalist would say: “Never use three words when one will do!”

Let’s look at the typical structure of a full research paper, but bear in mind certain subject disciplines may have their own specific requirements so check the instructions for authors on the journal’s home page.

4.1 The Title

It’s important to use the title to tell the reader what your paper is all about! You want to attract their attention, a bit like a newspaper headline does. Be specific and to the point. Keep it informative and concise, and avoid jargon and abbreviations (unless they are universally recognized like DNA, for example).

4.2 The Abstract

This could be termed as the “advertisement” for your article. Make it interesting and easily understood without the reader having to read the whole article. Be accurate and specific, and keep it as brief and concise as possible. Some journals (particularly in the medical fields) will ask you to structure the abstract in distinct, labeled sections, which makes it even more accessible.

A clear abstract will influence whether or not your work is considered and whether an editor should invest more time on it or send it for review.

4.3 Keywords

Keywords are used by abstracting and indexing services, such as PubMed and Web of Science. They are the labels of your manuscript, which make it “searchable” online by other researchers.

Include words or phrases (usually 4-8) that are closely related to your topic but not “too niche” for anyone to find them. Make sure to only use established abbreviations. Think about what scientific terms and its variations your potential readers are likely to use and search for. You can also do a test run of your selected keywords in one of the common academic search engines. Do similar articles to your own appear? Yes? Then that’s a good sign.

4.4 Introduction

This first part of the main text should introduce the problem, as well as any existing solutions you are aware of and the main limitations. Also, state what you hope to achieve with your research.

Do not confuse the introduction with the results, discussion or conclusion.

4.5 Methods

Every research article should include a detailed Methods section (also referred to as “Materials and Methods”) to provide the reader with enough information to be able to judge whether the study is valid and reproducible.

Include detailed information so that a knowledgeable reader can reproduce the experiment. However, use references and supplementary materials to indicate previously published procedures.

4.6 Results

In this section, you will present the essential or primary results of your study. To display them in a comprehensible way, you should use subheadings as well as illustrations such as figures, graphs, tables and photos, as appropriate.

4.7 Discussion

Here you should tell your readers what the results mean .

Do state how the results relate to the study’s aims and hypotheses and how the findings relate to those of other studies. Explain all possible interpretations of your findings and the study’s limitations.

Do not make “grand statements” that are not supported by the data. Also, do not introduce any new results or terms. Moreover, do not ignore work that conflicts or disagrees with your findings. Instead …

Be brave! Address conflicting study results and convince the reader you are the one who is correct.

4.8 Conclusion

Your conclusion isn’t just a summary of what you’ve already written. It should take your paper one step further and answer any unresolved questions.

Sum up what you have shown in your study and indicate possible applications and extensions. The main question your conclusion should answer is: What do my results mean for the research field and my community?

4.9 Acknowledgments and Ethical Statements

It is extremely important to acknowledge anyone who has helped you with your paper, including researchers who supplied materials or reagents (e.g. vectors or antibodies); and anyone who helped with the writing or English, or offered critical comments about the content.

Learn more about academic integrity in our blog post “Scholarly Publication Ethics: 4 Common Mistakes You Want To Avoid” .

Remember to state why people have been acknowledged and ask their permission . Ensure that you acknowledge sources of funding, including any grant or reference numbers.

Furthermore, if you have worked with animals or humans, you need to include information about the ethical approval of your study and, if applicable, whether informed consent was given. Also, state whether you have any competing interests regarding the study (e.g. because of financial or personal relationships.)

4.10 References

The end is in sight, but don’t relax just yet!

De facto, there are often more mistakes in the references than in any other part of the manuscript. It is also one of the most annoying and time-consuming problems for editors.

Remember to cite the main scientific publications on which your work is based. But do not inflate the manuscript with too many references. Avoid excessive – and especially unnecessary – self-citations. Also, avoid excessive citations of publications from the same institute or region.

5. Decide the Order of Authors

In the sciences, the most common way to order the names of the authors is by relative contribution.

Generally, the first author conducts and/or supervises the data analysis and the proper presentation and interpretation of the results. They put the paper together and usually submit the paper to the journal.

Co-authors make intellectual contributions to the data analysis and contribute to data interpretation. They review each paper draft. All of them must be able to present the paper and its results, as well as to defend the implications and discuss study limitations.

Do not leave out authors who should be included or add “gift authors”, i.e. authors who did not contribute significantly.

6. Check and Double-Check

As a final step before submission, ask colleagues to read your work and be constructively critical .

Make sure that the paper is appropriate for the journal – take a last look at their aims and scope. Check if all of the requirements in the instructions for authors are met.

Ensure that the cited literature is balanced. Are the aims, purpose and significance of the results clear?

Conduct a final check for language, either by a native English speaker or an editing service.

7. Submit Your Paper

When you and your co-authors have double-, triple-, quadruple-checked the manuscript: submit it via e-mail or online submission system. Along with your manuscript, submit a cover letter, which highlights the reasons why your paper would appeal to the journal and which ensures that you have received approval of all authors for submission.

It is up to the editors and the peer-reviewers now to provide you with their (ideally constructive and helpful) comments and feedback. Time to take a breather!

If the paper gets rejected, do not despair – it happens to literally everybody. If the journal suggests major or minor revisions, take the chance to provide a thorough response and make improvements as you see fit. If the paper gets accepted, congrats!

It’s now time to get writing and share your hard work – good luck!

If you are interested, check out this related blog post

[Title Image by Nick Morrison via Unsplash]

David Sleeman

David Sleeman worked as Senior Journals Manager in the field of Physical Sciences at De Gruyter.

You might also be interested in

Academia & Publishing

How to Maximize Your Message Through Social Media: A Global Masterclass from Library Professionals

Taking libraries into the future, part 2: an interview with mike jones and tomasz stompor, embracing diversity, equity and inclusion: social justice and the modern university, visit our shop.

De Gruyter publishes over 1,300 new book titles each year and more than 750 journals in the humanities, social sciences, medicine, mathematics, engineering, computer sciences, natural sciences, and law.

Pin It on Pinterest

Peer Recognized

Make a name in academia

How to Write a Research Paper: the LEAP approach (+cheat sheet)

In this article I will show you how to write a research paper using the four LEAP writing steps. The LEAP academic writing approach is a step-by-step method for turning research results into a published paper .

The LEAP writing approach has been the cornerstone of the 70 + research papers that I have authored and the 3700+ citations these paper have accumulated within 9 years since the completion of my PhD. I hope the LEAP approach will help you just as much as it has helped me to make an real, tangible impact with my research.

What is the LEAP research paper writing approach?

I designed the LEAP writing approach not only for merely writing the papers. My goal with the writing system was to show young scientists how to first think about research results and then how to efficiently write each section of the research paper.

In other words, you will see how to write a research paper by first analyzing the results and then building a logical, persuasive arguments. In this way, instead of being afraid of writing research paper, you will be able to rely on the paper writing process to help you with what is the most demanding task in getting published – thinking.

The four research paper writing steps according to the LEAP approach:

I will show each of these steps in detail. And you will be able to download the LEAP cheat sheet for using with every paper you write.

But before I tell you how to efficiently write a research paper, I want to show you what is the problem with the way scientists typically write a research paper and why the LEAP approach is more efficient.

How scientists typically write a research paper (and why it isn’t efficient)

Writing a research paper can be tough, especially for a young scientist. Your reasoning needs to be persuasive and thorough enough to convince readers of your arguments. The description has to be derived from research evidence, from prior art, and from your own judgment. This is a tough feat to accomplish.

The figure below shows the sequence of the different parts of a typical research paper. Depending on the scientific journal, some sections might be merged or nonexistent, but the general outline of a research paper will remain very similar.

Here is the problem: Most people make the mistake of writing in this same sequence.

While the structure of scientific articles is designed to help the reader follow the research, it does little to help the scientist write the paper. This is because the layout of research articles starts with the broad (introduction) and narrows down to the specifics (results). See in the figure below how the research paper is structured in terms of the breath of information that each section entails.

How to write a research paper according to the LEAP approach

For a scientist, it is much easier to start writing a research paper with laying out the facts in the narrow sections (i.e. results), step back to describe them (i.e. write the discussion), and step back again to explain the broader picture in the introduction.

For example, it might feel intimidating to start writing a research paper by explaining your research’s global significance in the introduction, while it is easy to plot the figures in the results. When plotting the results, there is not much room for wiggle: the results are what they are.

Starting to write a research papers from the results is also more fun because you finally get to see and understand the complete picture of the research that you have worked on.

Most importantly, following the LEAP approach will help you first make sense of the results yourself and then clearly communicate them to the readers. That is because the sequence of writing allows you to slowly understand the meaning of the results and then develop arguments for presenting to your readers.

I have personally been able to write and submit a research article in three short days using this method.

Step 1: Lay Out the Facts

You have worked long hours on a research project that has produced results and are no doubt curious to determine what they exactly mean. There is no better way to do this than by preparing figures, graphics and tables. This is what the first LEAP step is focused on – diving into the results.

How to p repare charts and tables for a research paper

Your first task is to try out different ways of visually demonstrating the research results. In many fields, the central items of a journal paper will be charts that are based on the data generated during research. In other fields, these might be conceptual diagrams, microscopy images, schematics and a number of other types of scientific graphics which should visually communicate the research study and its results to the readers. If you have reasonably small number of data points, data tables might be useful as well.

Tips for preparing charts and tables

• Try multiple chart types but in the finished paper only use the one that best conveys the message you want to present to the readers
• Follow the eight chart design progressions for selecting and refining a data chart for your paper: https://peerrecognized.com/chart-progressions
• Prepare scientific graphics and visualizations for your paper using the scientific graphic design cheat sheet: https://peerrecognized.com/tools-for-creating-scientific-illustrations/

How to describe the results of your research

Now that you have your data charts, graphics and tables laid out in front of you – describe what you see in them. Seek to answer the question: What have I found?  Your statements should progress in a logical sequence and be backed by the visual information. Since, at this point, you are simply explaining what everyone should be able to see for themselves, you can use a declarative tone: The figure X demonstrates that…

Tips for describing the research results :

• Answer the question: “ What have I found? “
• Use declarative tone since you are simply describing observations

Step 2: Explain the results

The core aspect of your research paper is not actually the results; it is the explanation of their meaning. In the second LEAP step, you will do some heavy lifting by guiding the readers through the results using logic backed by previous scientific research.

How to define the Message of a research paper

To define the central message of your research paper, imagine how you would explain your research to a colleague in 20 seconds . If you succeed in effectively communicating your paper’s message, a reader should be able to recount your findings in a similarly concise way even a year after reading it. This clarity will increase the chances that someone uses the knowledge you generated, which in turn raises the likelihood of citations to your research paper. 

Tips for defining the paper’s central message :

• Write the paper’s core message in a single sentence or two bullet points
• Write the core message in the header of the research paper manuscript

How to write the Discussion section of a research paper

In the discussion section you have to demonstrate why your research paper is worthy of publishing. In other words, you must now answer the all-important So what? question . How well you do so will ultimately define the success of your research paper.

Here are three steps to get started with writing the discussion section:

• Write bullet points of the things that convey the central message of the research article (these may evolve into subheadings later on).
• Make a list with the arguments or observations that support each idea.
• Finally, expand on each point to make full sentences and paragraphs.

Tips for writing the discussion section:

• What is the meaning of the results?
• Was the hypothesis confirmed?
• Write bullet points that support the core message
• List logical arguments for each bullet point, group them into sections
• Instead of repeating research timeline, use a presentation sequence that best supports your logic
• Convert arguments to full paragraphs; be confident but do not overhype
• Refer to both supportive and contradicting research papers for maximum credibility

How to write the Conclusions of a research paper

Since some readers might just skim through your research paper and turn directly to the conclusions, it is a good idea to make conclusion a standalone piece. In the first few sentences of the conclusions, briefly summarize the methodology and try to avoid using abbreviations (if you do, explain what they mean).

After this introduction, summarize the findings from the discussion section. Either paragraph style or bullet-point style conclusions can be used. I prefer the bullet-point style because it clearly separates the different conclusions and provides an easy-to-digest overview for the casual browser. It also forces me to be more succinct.

Tips for writing the conclusion section :

• Summarize the key findings, starting with the most important one
• Make conclusions standalone (short summary, avoid abbreviations)
• Add an optional take-home message and suggest future research in the last paragraph

How to refine the Objective of a research paper

The objective is a short, clear statement defining the paper’s research goals. It can be included either in the final paragraph of the introduction, or as a separate subsection after the introduction. Avoid writing long paragraphs with in-depth reasoning, references, and explanation of methodology since these belong in other sections. The paper’s objective can often be written in a single crisp sentence.

Tips for writing the objective section :

• The objective should ask the question that is answered by the central message of the research paper
• The research objective should be clear long before writing a paper. At this point, you are simply refining it to make sure it is addressed in the body of the paper.

How to write the Methodology section of your research paper

When writing the methodology section, aim for a depth of explanation that will allow readers to reproduce the study . This means that if you are using a novel method, you will have to describe it thoroughly. If, on the other hand, you applied a standardized method, or used an approach from another paper, it will be enough to briefly describe it with reference to the detailed original source.

Remember to also detail the research population, mention how you ensured representative sampling, and elaborate on what statistical methods you used to analyze the results.

Tips for writing the methodology section :

• Include enough detail to allow reproducing the research
• Provide references if the methods are known
• Create a methodology flow chart to add clarity
• Describe the research population, sampling methodology, statistical methods for result analysis
• Describe what methodology, test methods, materials, and sample groups were used in the research.

Step 3: Advertize the research

Step 3 of the LEAP writing approach is designed to entice the casual browser into reading your research paper. This advertising can be done with an informative title, an intriguing abstract, as well as a thorough explanation of the underlying need for doing the research within the introduction.

How to write the Introduction of a research paper

The introduction section should leave no doubt in the mind of the reader that what you are doing is important and that this work could push scientific knowledge forward. To do this convincingly, you will need to have a good knowledge of what is state-of-the-art in your field. You also need be able to see the bigger picture in order to demonstrate the potential impacts of your research work.

Think of the introduction as a funnel, going from wide to narrow, as shown in the figure below:

• Start with a brief context to explain what do we already know,
• Follow with the motivation for the research study and explain why should we care about it,
• Explain the research gap you are going to bridge within this research paper,
• Describe the approach you will take to solve the problem.

Tips for writing the introduction section :

• Follow the Context – Motivation – Research gap – Approach funnel for writing the introduction
• Explain how others tried and how you plan to solve the research problem
• Do a thorough literature review before writing the introduction
• Start writing the introduction by using your own words, then add references from the literature

How to prepare the Abstract of a research paper

The abstract acts as your paper’s elevator pitch and is therefore best written only after the main text is finished. In this one short paragraph you must convince someone to take on the time-consuming task of reading your whole research article. So, make the paper easy to read, intriguing, and self-explanatory; avoid jargon and abbreviations.

How to structure the abstract of a research paper:

• The abstract is a single paragraph that follows this structure:
• Problem: why did we research this
• Methodology: typically starts with the words “Here we…” that signal the start of own contribution.
• Results: what we found from the research.
• Conclusions: show why are the findings important

How to compose a research paper Title

The title is the ultimate summary of a research paper. It must therefore entice someone looking for information to click on a link to it and continue reading the article. A title is also used for indexing purposes in scientific databases, so a representative and optimized title will play large role in determining if your research paper appears in search results at all.

Tips for coming up with a research paper title:

• Capture curiosity of potential readers using a clear and descriptive title
• Include broad terms that are often searched
• Add details that uniquely identify the researched subject of your research paper
• Avoid jargon and abbreviations
• Use keywords as title extension (instead of duplicating the words) to increase the chance of appearing in search results

How to prepare Highlights and Graphical Abstract

Highlights are three to five short bullet-point style statements that convey the core findings of the research paper. Notice that the focus is on the findings, not on the process of getting there.

A graphical abstract placed next to the textual abstract visually summarizes the entire research paper in a single, easy-to-follow figure. I show how to create a graphical abstract in my book Research Data Visualization and Scientific Graphics.

Tips for preparing highlights and graphical abstract:

• In highlights show core findings of the research paper (instead of what you did in the study).
• In graphical abstract show take-home message or methodology of the research paper. Learn more about creating a graphical abstract in this article.

Step 4: Prepare for submission

Sometimes it seems that nuclear fusion will stop on the star closest to us (read: the sun will stop to shine) before a submitted manuscript is published in a scientific journal. The publication process routinely takes a long time, and after submitting the manuscript you have very little control over what happens. To increase the chances of a quick publication, you must do your homework before submitting the manuscript. In the fourth LEAP step, you make sure that your research paper is published in the most appropriate journal as quickly and painlessly as possible.

How to select a scientific Journal for your research paper

The best way to find a journal for your research paper is it to review which journals you used while preparing your manuscript. This source listing should provide some assurance that your own research paper, once published, will be among similar articles and, thus, among your field’s trusted sources.

After this initial selection of hand-full of scientific journals, consider the following six parameters for selecting the most appropriate journal for your research paper (read this article to review each step in detail):

• Scope and publishing history
• Ranking and Recognition
• Publishing time
• Acceptance rate
• Content requirements
• Access and Fees

How to select a journal for your research paper:

• Use the six parameters to select the most appropriate scientific journal for your research paper
• Use the following tools for journal selection: https://peerrecognized.com/journals
• Follow the journal’s “Authors guide” formatting requirements

How to Edit you manuscript

No one can write a finished research paper on their first attempt. Before submitting, make sure to take a break from your work for a couple of days, or even weeks. Try not to think about the manuscript during this time. Once it has faded from your memory, it is time to return and edit. The pause will allow you to read the manuscript from a fresh perspective and make edits as necessary.

I have summarized the most useful research paper editing tools in this article.

Tips for editing a research paper:

• Take time away from the research paper to forget about it; then returning to edit,
• Start by editing the content: structure, headings, paragraphs, logic, figures
• Continue by editing the grammar and language; perform a thorough language check using academic writing tools
• Read the entire paper out loud and correct what sounds weird

How to write a compelling Cover Letter for your paper

Begin the cover letter by stating the paper’s title and the type of paper you are submitting (review paper, research paper, short communication). Next, concisely explain why your study was performed, what was done, and what the key findings are. State why the results are important and what impact they might have in the field. Make sure you mention how your approach and findings relate to the scope of the journal in order to show why the article would be of interest to the journal’s readers.

I wrote a separate article that explains what to include in a cover letter here. You can also download a cover letter template from the article.

Tips for writing a cover letter:

• Explain how the findings of your research relate to journal’s scope
• Tell what impact the research results will have
• Show why the research paper will interest the journal’s audience
• Add any legal statements as required in journal’s guide for authors

How to Answer the Reviewers

Reviewers will often ask for new experiments, extended discussion, additional details on the experimental setup, and so forth. In principle, your primary winning tactic will be to agree with the reviewers and follow their suggestions whenever possible. After all, you must earn their blessing in order to get your paper published.

Be sure to answer each review query and stick to the point. In the response to the reviewers document write exactly where in the paper you have made any changes. In the paper itself, highlight the changes using a different color. This way the reviewers are less likely to re-read the entire article and suggest new edits.

In cases when you don’t agree with the reviewers, it makes sense to answer more thoroughly. Reviewers are scientifically minded people and so, with enough logical and supported argument, they will eventually be willing to see things your way.

Tips for answering the reviewers:

• Agree with most review comments, but if you don’t, thoroughly explain why
• Highlight changes in the manuscript
• Do not take the comments personally and cool down before answering

The LEAP research paper writing cheat sheet

Imagine that you are back in grad school and preparing to take an exam on the topic: “How to write a research paper”. As an exemplary student, you would, most naturally, create a cheat sheet summarizing the subject… Well, I did it for you.

This one-page summary of the LEAP research paper writing technique will remind you of the key research paper writing steps. Print it out and stick it to a wall in your office so that you can review it whenever you are writing a new research paper.

Now that we have gone through the four LEAP research paper writing steps, I hope you have a good idea of how to write a research paper. It can be an enjoyable process and once you get the hang of it, the four LEAP writing steps should even help you think about and interpret the research results. This process should enable you to write a well-structured, concise, and compelling research paper.

Have fund with writing your next research paper. I hope it will turn out great!

Learn writing papers that get cited

The LEAP writing approach is a blueprint for writing research papers. But to be efficient and write papers that get cited, you need more than that.

My name is Martins Zaumanis and in my interactive course Research Paper Writing Masterclass I will show you how to  visualize  your research results,  frame a message  that convinces your readers, and write  each section  of the paper. Step-by-step.

And of course – you will learn to respond the infamous  Reviewer No.2.

Hey! My name is Martins Zaumanis and I am a materials scientist in Switzerland ( Google Scholar ). As the first person in my family with a PhD, I have first-hand experience of the challenges starting scientists face in academia. With this blog, I want to help young researchers succeed in academia. I call the blog “Peer Recognized”, because peer recognition is what lifts academic careers and pushes science forward.

Besides this blog, I have written the Peer Recognized book series and created the Peer Recognized Academy offering interactive online courses.

Related articles:

One comment

• Pingback: Research Paper Outline with Key Sentence Skeleton (+Paper Template)

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

I want to join the Peer Recognized newsletter!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Privacy Overview

Copyright © 2024 Martins Zaumanis

Contacts:  [email protected]  

Privacy Policy 

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
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

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

Affiliations.

• 1 Department of Maternal and Child Health, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, 135 Dauer Dr, 27599, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
• 2 Department of Maternal and Child Health, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, 135 Dauer Dr, 27599, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. [email protected].
• 3 Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan School of Public Health, 1415 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-2029, USA. [email protected].
• PMID: 32356250
• PMCID: PMC8520870
• DOI: 10.1007/s13187-020-01751-z

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.

Keywords: Manuscripts; Publishing; Scientific writing.

© 2020. The Author(s).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

The main elements of the…

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

Major elements of the discussion…

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

Checklist for manuscript quality

Similar articles

• How to write and publish scientific papers: scribing information for pharmacists. Hamilton CW. Hamilton CW. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1992 Oct;49(10):2477-84. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1992. PMID: 1442826
• Writing biomedical manuscripts part I: fundamentals and general rules. Ohwovoriole AE. Ohwovoriole AE. West Afr J Med. 2011 May-Jun;30(3):151-7. West Afr J Med. 2011. PMID: 22120477 Review.
• Publishing particulars: Part 1. The big picture. Seals DR. Seals DR. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2023 Mar 1;324(3):R381-R392. doi: 10.1152/ajpregu.00265.2022. Epub 2023 Feb 7. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2023. PMID: 36749295
• Strategies to successfully publish your first manuscript. Veness M. Veness M. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2010 Aug;54(4):395-400. doi: 10.1111/j.1754-9485.2010.02186.x. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2010. PMID: 20718922
• [Preparing a manuscript for publication in a scientific journal]. Claes L, Rosenbaum D. Claes L, et al. Unfallchirurg. 1999 May;102(5):377-83. doi: 10.1007/s001130050421. Unfallchirurg. 1999. PMID: 10409911 Review. German.
• Writing a manuscript for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal: Guidance from the European Society of Clinical Pharmacy. Wirth F, Cadogan CA, Fialová D, Hazen A, Lutters M, Paudyal V, Weidmann AE, Okuyan B, Henman MC. Wirth F, et al. Int J Clin Pharm. 2024 Apr;46(2):548-554. doi: 10.1007/s11096-023-01695-6. Epub 2024 Feb 8. Int J Clin Pharm. 2024. PMID: 38332208 Free PMC article.
• Lessons learnt from a scientific peer-review training programme designed to support research capacity and professional development in a global community. Buser JM, Morris KL, Millicent Dzomeku V, Endale T, Smith YR, August E. Buser JM, et al. BMJ Glob Health. 2023 Apr;8(4):e012224. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2023-012224. BMJ Glob Health. 2023. PMID: 37185299 Free PMC article.
• A guide to backward paper writing for the data sciences. Zelner J, Broen K, August E. Zelner J, et al. Patterns (N Y). 2022 Jan 3;3(3):100423. doi: 10.1016/j.patter.2021.100423. eCollection 2022 Mar 11. Patterns (N Y). 2022. PMID: 35510182 Free PMC article. Review.
• Practical guide for the use of medical evidence in scientific publication: Recommendations for the medical student: Narrative review. Lozada-Martínez ID, Acevedo-Aguilar LM, Mass-Hernández LM, Matta-Rodríguez D, Jiménez-Filigrana JA, Garzón-Gutiérrez KE, Barahona-Botache SA, Vásquez-Castañeda DL, Caicedo-Giraldo SDR, Rahman S. Lozada-Martínez ID, et al. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2021 Oct 9;71:102932. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2021.102932. eCollection 2021 Nov. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2021. PMID: 34659747 Free PMC article. Review.
• Michalek AM. Down the rabbit hole…advice to reviewers. J Cancer Educ. 2014;29:4–5. doi: 10.1007/s13187-013-0602-x. - DOI - PubMed
• 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/d... . Accessed 15 January, 2020
• Vetto JT. Short and sweet: a short course on concise medical writing. J Cancer Educ. 2014;29(1):194–195. doi: 10.1007/s13187-013-0584-8. - DOI - PubMed
• Brett M, Kording K (2017) Ten simple rules for structuring papers. PLoS ComputBiol. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005619 - PMC - PubMed
• Lang TA (2017) Writing a better research article. J Public Health Emerg. 10.21037/jphe.2017.11.06
• Search in MeSH

Related information

Linkout - more resources, full text sources.

• Europe PubMed Central
• PubMed Central
• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

• 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
• Publish a book
• Publish conference proceedings

Join thousands of researchers worldwide that have published their work in one of our 3,000+ Springer Nature journals.

Step-by-step guide to article publishing

1. Prepare your article

• Make sure you follow the submission guidelines for that journal. Search for a journal .
• Get permission to use any images.
• Check that your data is easy to reproduce.
• State clearly if you're reusing any data that has been used elsewhere.
• Follow our policies on plagiarism and ethics .
• Use our services to get help with English translation, scientific assessment and formatting. Find out what support you can get .

2. Write a cover letter

• Introduce your work in a 1-page letter, explaining the research you did, and why it's relevant.

3. Submit your manuscript

• Go to the journal homepage to start the process
• You can only submit 1 article at a time to each journal. Duplicate submissions will be rejected.

4. Technical check

• We'll make sure that your article follows the journal guidelines for formatting, ethics, plagiarism, contributors, and permissions.

5. Editor and peer review

• The journal editor will read your article and decide if it's ready for peer review.
• Most articles will be reviewed by 2 or more experts in the field.
• They may contact you with questions at this point.

6. Final decision

• If your article is accepted, you'll need to sign a publishing agreement.
• If your article is rejected, you can get help finding another journal from our transfer desk team .
• If your article is open access, you'll need to pay a fee.
• Fees for OA publishing differ across journals. See relevant journal page for more information.
• You may be able to get help covering that cost. See information on funding .
• We'll send you proofs to approve, then we'll publish your article.
• Track your impact by logging in to your account

Get tips on preparing your manuscript using our submission checklist .

Each publication follows a slightly different process, so check the journal's guidelines for more details

Open access vs subscription publishing

Each of our journals has its own policies, options, and fees for publishing.

Over 600 of our journals are fully open access. Others use a hybrid model, with readers paying to access some articles.

Publishing your article open access has a number of benefits:

• Free to access and download
• Reaches a wider global audience
• 1.6x more citations
• 6x more downloads
• 4.9 average Altmetric attention (vs 2.1 subscription)

It's free to publish your article in a subscription journal, but there are fees for publishing open access articles. You'll need to check the open access fees for the journal you choose.

Learn more about open access

Get help with funding.

Many organisations require you to publish your research open access. It's worth checking with your supervisor and colleagues to understand your organisation's approach.

Many funders and institutions will cover your open access publishing fees. To find out if your fees are covered, take a look at our funding agreements .

We also offer discounts for researchers in some geographical regions. See regions with reduced fees

Learn more about funding

Choose a journal.

We have 3,000+ journals to choose from, covering a wide range of topics. The best way to find a relevant journal is to search by keyword.

Once you've chosen a journal, check the submission guidelines to see the open access fees.

Search all journals

Get support.

We offer editing, translation, data presentation and formatting services to help you at each step.

Author support for publishing

Knowledge resources for scientists, author tutorials.

If you have a question about a specific journal, check the submission guidelines. If you still need help, contact us .

• 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.

Little-known secrets for how to get published

Advice from seasoned psychologists for those seeking to publish in a journal for the first time

By Rebecca A. Clay

January 2019, Vol 50, No. 1

Print version: page 64

• Peer Review

An academic who is trying to get a journal article published is a lot like a salmon swimming upstream, says Dana S. Dunn, PhD, a member of APA’s Board of Educational Affairs. “The most important thing is persistence,” says Dunn, a psychology professor at Moravian College in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

But there are ways to make the journey through the publication process (see The publication process ) easier. “The more work you do up front, the more you can ensure a good outcome,” says Dunn. Among other tasks, that means finding the right venue, crafting the best possible manuscript and not giving up when asked to revise a manuscript.

The Monitor spoke with Dunn and several other senior faculty members with extensive experience publishing articles and serving as journal editors and editorial board members. Here’s their advice.

■ Target the right journals. To find the journal that’s the best fit for your article, research the journals themselves. Check each target journal’s mission statement, ask colleagues who have published there if your work is appropriate for it and read a current issue to see the kinds of articles it contains. “If your work isn’t in line with what they publish, they will reject it out of hand and you will have wasted valuable time,” says Dunn.

Also examine the composition of a journal’s editorial board, which will offer valuable clues about the kind of work the journal values—qualitative versus quantitative research, for example, or single-experiment studies versus multiple-experiment ones. You can even shoot a short email to the editor briefly summarizing your manuscript and asking if it sounds like something he or she feels would be appropriate for the journal. “Editors are pretty good at saying yes or no,” says Dunn.

In addition, let more experienced colleagues assess the strength of your study and give you some ideas about possible venues, says Jerry Suls, PhD, a professor emeritus of psychological and brain sciences at the University of Iowa in Iowa City. Ask how strong and how novel they think your results are and whether your study has any methodological limitations. Although your colleagues may not have a completely accurate view of what journals will and won’t publish, says Suls, it’s still a good idea to get a sense of what they think about your chances.

■ Balance ambition and realism. Aim high, but be realistic about where you send your manuscript. But don’t get too hung up on trying to figure out a hierarchy of which is the “best” journal, says Rose Sokol-Chang, PhD, publisher of journals at APA. Instead, she suggests, think about what you’re trying to achieve with your article. For example, some journals have a longer history, broader focus and higher impact factor, a measure of how often papers in the journal are cited compared to how much is published in the journal. For more narrowly focused research, there are journals focused on subdisciplines that are well-respected by experts and have high impact factors. You could also try highly specialized journals appropriate to your direct area of research, which are more limited in scope and readership. Keep in mind that APA publishes its own journals as well as many affiliated journals, which vary in their levels of specialization.

What you do want to avoid is publishing in one of the increasing number of journals—often online—that aren’t peer-reviewed, says Nova Southeastern University psychology professor Linda Carter Sobell, PhD. Junior faculty may not even be aware that these journals aren’t true academic journals, says Sobell, adding that one possible outcome is that they go up for tenure only to have colleagues point out that their articles are published in nonreputable journals. Tip-offs include nonuniversity addresses or requests that authors pay to publish their work. “You can’t trust them when they say they’re peer-­reviewed,” says Sobell. “That could mean the secretary looks at the manuscript when it comes in.”

To check rejection rates, go to www.apa.org/pubs/journals/statistics to get a sense of the odds for APA journals. For other journals, contact the editor, check the publication’s website or directions to contributors or see if your institution subscribes to the Cabells database, which offers information on both reputable journals and those it deems “predatory.”

Also, be sure to submit your work to just one journal at a time. Shotgunning a manuscript to multiple outlets simultaneously “is completely verboten,” says Suls.

■ Hone your manuscript. Give yourself time to write the best manuscript you can, says APA Board of Scientific Affairs (BSA) member Keith F. Widaman, PhD, distinguished professor of the Graduate Division of the Graduate School of Education at the University of California, Riverside. To make sure your writing is first-rate, study “The Elements of Style,” says Widaman, who rereads the William Strunk and E.B. White classic every year or two. Learn the difference between active and passive voices, the difference between “that” and “which,” and when to use commas. “There are times when you misportray the meaning of what you’re trying to get across if you write something poorly,” he says.

Before you start writing, draft an outline with subheads that mimic how manuscripts are organized in APA journals. “Carefully constructing a manuscript helps the reader follow your thinking,” he says. Also consult APA’s newly revised Journal Article Reporting Standards (APA Style JARS), which offer guidance on what information needs to be included in a research manuscript, whether your manuscript covers quantitative research or qualitative research ( American Psychologist , Vol. 73, No. 1, 2018), suggests Sokol-Chang.

Be sure to pay close attention to details such as spelling and footnotes, Widaman adds. “If a person does a crummy job with references, for example, what other details are they not paying attention to?” To this end, take advantage of APA Style CENTRAL , which offers manuscript templates, preformatted references drawn from APA’s PsycINFO database and more.

And polish your manuscript by asking colleagues—both in and out of your specialty area—to offer constructive criticism. Make sure you haven’t overlooked relevant citations, which will suggest to reviewers that you don’t know the literature and where your work fits in. Consider having a statistician double-check your analyses.

■ Be prepared to revise. Most manuscripts are going to be rejected, so don’t take rejection personally, says Suls. It’s also extremely rare for a journal to accept a manuscript as is. Of the thousand-plus manuscripts Suls saw as associate editor of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, he remembers only two that received a thumbs-up without requests for at least minor revisions. “Most papers are going to be rejected or are going to be resubmitted with revisions,” says Suls. “You’re not the only one.”

Your initial reaction to reviewers’ feedback may be disappointment or even anger. Put the comments aside for a few days while you calm down. “The first thing to realize is that reviewers are not trying to do a search-and-destroy mission; they’re trying to be helpful,” says Dunn. “Often when you read the comments with a colder eye, you realize the comments are good ones that will improve your work.”

For less extreme problems, the editor may invite you to revise the rejected paper and resubmit it or suggest that you send your manuscript elsewhere. Either way, be just as diligent in revising your manuscript as you were in writing it, says Dunn. Thank the reviewers, address every comment they made and use a detailed cover letter to explain those changes, with page numbers so the editor can easily see how you’ve addressed concerns. If reviewers disagree on a particular point and the editor hasn’t chimed in, choose which side you agree with and explain why you chose that side. And if you disagree with a comment and decide to reject that advice, explain that too.

■ Gain experience. Being on the other side of the editorial process can help give you ideas about how to better craft your own manuscripts. If you’re a graduate student or junior faculty member, ask a mentor or colleague who frequently serves as a reviewer if you can become a co-reviewer. “That’s a valuable educational experience,” says Dunn. (See “ How to Review a Manuscript ” in the May 2018 Monitor for more insights.)

If you do get a chance to review someone else’s manuscript, do it well and turn it in quickly. “If it comes back in a very timely fashion and the review is a good one, that person will be used again,” says Suls. That said, junior faculty should make sure the review process does not cut into the time they devote to doing their own research and writing.

■ Keep trying. Finally, don’t give up if your article is rejected by the first publication you send it to, says BSA member Jeffrey M. Zacks, PhD, a professor of psychological and brain sciences and radiology at Washington University in St. Louis. As long as your research is fundamentally sound, says Zacks, “there’s usually another reasonable journal you can turn around and go to.” 

For a set of interactive modules on publishing journal articles, reviewing journal manuscripts and other issues of importance to early career academics and researchers, see APA’s Science Career Series at www.apa.org/career-development/courses .

Further reading

Managing Your Research Data and Documentation Berenson, K.R. APA, 2017

How to Publish High-Quality Research Joireman, J., & Van Lange, P.A.M. APA, 2015

Write It Up: Practical Strategies for Writing and Publishing Journal Articles Silvia, P.J. APA, 2015

Related Articles

• The publication process

Key takeaways

1: Find the right journal for your research.

2: Write carefully and double-check your analyses.

3: Be open to revisions.

4: Don’t give up after a rejection—rework and resubmit.

Letters to the Editor

• Send us a letter

The Research Whisperer

Just like the thesis whisperer – but with more money, when is a paper published.

When a paper is published could seem obvious but this is not a trivial question.

For some time now, a research article can display several different dates that can prove confusing when trying to work out when a scholarly publication is actually released. In the hardcopy print era, before the Web shook up the academic publishing system, the publication date was always associated with the issued date, the moment at which an article was included in an issue and publicly distributed. This was true because serial publications had to publish articles in groups each time for economic reasons. As the print journals released their articles in periodical issues (biannual, quarterly, monthly, etc.), it was easy to determine when an article was published. The issue indicated the moment. Now, that information is missing on the websites of some academic journals, and we have to estimate the date according to the volume and issue number (e.g. Begell house, ATS Journals).

With the advent of online publishing and the adaptation of print journals to the digital environment, many of the traditional conventions are not necessary. Among them, the grouping of articles in regular issues is technically unnecessary because each paper can be released individually. Although most journals still use the format of volumes and issues, many of the newer electronic journals are giving up this practice (e.g. F1000 Research, eLife, PLOS ONE [which still uses volumes and issues as a convention for citation but not as a way to organize the publication]). This  is causing uncertainty with regard to the publication date because it is common to establish, on one hand, the online publication date and, on the other hand, the date when an article is finally assigned to an issue. This is causing confusion about when an article is published and which date is the actual one.

A possible solution might be to ask Crossref (a place where most of the academic publishers deposit their metadata) when a bibliographic record is initially created. However, if we have a glance at the Crossref API , we can find up to eight dates associated with a publication: Indexed date, posted date, updated date, accepted date, deposited date, created date, published-online date, and issued date. This gets worse when each publisher interprets the meaning of each field differently. For instance, Febs Press (Wiley group) assigns the same date to published-online and issued date, whereas Spinger considers created date and published-online date the same thing, but different to issue date. This multiplicity of dates and meanings does not do anything but increase the confusion about the publication date.

Why is it so important to know exactly when a publication is published?

First, classic bibliometrics was focused almost exclusively on citation impact. This metric has an important delay because it takes a long time from when a paper is published till when it might start to be cited; papers are rarely cited within a year. In this sense, accuracy is not so important because we measure citations by years, not months or days (e.g. Journal Impact Factor). However, the appearance of other metrics (e.g. social media mentions, document views, bookmarking saves) that occur in short time spans, is demanding greater precision. The analysis of these new impact indicators has demonstrated that they happen in the first months, days, or hours in the lifespan of a publication. This immediacy requires the specification of the moment in which an article is made publicly available to understand how and when the social, academic and usage impact is generated. Therefore, current bibliometric studies demand a more precise definition of when a paper is published.

A second reason is related to the research evaluation. The delay between the moment in which a paper is accessible on the publisher’s platform and the moment when it is finally issued can be very long. It is common to see that a paper is accessible in one year but is not printed till the next. This detail could have consequences for the evaluation of research careers when time windows are set up. Important contributions that would improve the assessment of researchers could be excluded because they are published online but not formally assigned to an issue. Many evaluation agencies only consider the final issue date of a publication, in spite of the fact that many papers are accepted and accessible on the Web before that.

At a macro level, when statistics about the aggregate production of organizations and countries are created, the consolidation of those figures would require several years because online papers counted in one year would have to be moved to the next year when they are finally issued. It is crucial to know the precise publication date in order to correctly value the performance of researchers in a time period as well as to obtain a reliable picture about the research effort of organizations and countries.

The third reason is related to the previous point and concerns the difficulties when scientific information systems such as citation indexes or academic search engines come up against different publication dates. Two records of the same publication with different publication dates may be wrongly considered distinct, increasing the risk of duplication. In addition, multiple dates require a great effort of updating because bibliographic databases have to be alert to when the definitive publication date occurs. All these continuous verifications consume much time and many economic resources in the maintenance of scholarly information systems.

What can we do?

As a first step, a clear definition about the meaning of ‘publication date’ should be established. Publishers, through Crossref, must indicate the precise moment in which the paper is definitively released. In my opinion, that date should be the moment when the paper is made publicly accessible on the Web or another medium. That is the time when articles come to life, when they start to be read, mentioned, saved, and cited. Therefore, the online or web date should be considered the principal date for bibliometric studies, research evaluation and information systems. In 2021, Clarivate stated that only the web publishing date (Early Access) would be used for computing the Journal Impact Factor .

The next step would be to define international standards that allow us to respond easily, quickly, and accurately whenever a paper’s publication date is sought.

————————————-

José has authored the books Academic search engines: A Quantitative Outlook and Social Network Sites for Scientists: A Quantitative Survey.

Twitter: @JLOrtegaPriego

ORCID: 0000-0001-9857-1511

Share this:

[…] “We can find up to eight dates associated with a publication” and “this gets worse when each p… — When is a paper “published”? (via Retraction Watch) […]

“The delay between the moment in which a paper is accessible on the publisher’s platform and the moment when it is finally issued can be very long. It is common to see that a paper is accessible in one year but is not printed till the next.”

Journals die. When a journal disappears, there will be papers that are publicly available but never ‘published’ since the journal died before those papers could get an issue number and a ‘published’ date. That’s totally unfair on the authors.

[…] When is a paper published? […]

Leave a comment Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

Grab your spot at the free arXiv Accessibility Forum

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Computers and Society

Title: personhood credentials: artificial intelligence and the value of privacy-preserving tools to distinguish who is real online.

Abstract: Anonymity is an important principle online. However, malicious actors have long used misleading identities to conduct fraud, spread disinformation, and carry out other deceptive schemes. With the advent of increasingly capable AI, bad actors can amplify the potential scale and effectiveness of their operations, intensifying the challenge of balancing anonymity and trustworthiness online. In this paper, we analyze the value of a new tool to address this challenge: "personhood credentials" (PHCs), digital credentials that empower users to demonstrate that they are real people -- not AIs -- to online services, without disclosing any personal information. Such credentials can be issued by a range of trusted institutions -- governments or otherwise. A PHC system, according to our definition, could be local or global, and does not need to be biometrics-based. Two trends in AI contribute to the urgency of the challenge: AI's increasing indistinguishability (i.e., lifelike content and avatars, agentic activity) from people online, and AI's increasing scalability (i.e., cost-effectiveness, accessibility). Drawing on a long history of research into anonymous credentials and "proof-of-personhood" systems, personhood credentials give people a way to signal their trustworthiness on online platforms, and offer service providers new tools for reducing misuse by bad actors. In contrast, existing countermeasures to automated deception -- such as CAPTCHAs -- are inadequate against sophisticated AI, while stringent identity verification solutions are insufficiently private for many use-cases. After surveying the benefits of personhood credentials, we also examine deployment risks and design challenges. We conclude with actionable next steps for policymakers, technologists, and standards bodies to consider in consultation with the public.

Submission history

Access paper:.

• HTML (experimental)
• Other Formats

References & Citations

• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

• Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .

• Open access
• Published: 19 August 2024

If health organisations and staff engage in research, does healthcare improve? Strengthening the evidence base through systematic reviews

• Annette Boaz 1 ,
• Belinda Goodenough 2 ,
• Stephen Hanney 3 &
• Bryony Soper 3  

Health Research Policy and Systems volume  22 , Article number:  113 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

There is an often-held assumption that the engagement of clinicians and healthcare organizations in research improves healthcare performance at various levels. Previous reviews found up to 28 studies suggesting a positive association between the engagement of individuals and healthcare organizations in research and improvements in healthcare performance. The current study sought to provide an update.

We updated our existing published systematic review by again addressing the question: Does research engagement (by clinicians and organizations) improve healthcare performance? The search covered the period 1 January 2012 to March 2024, in two phases. First, the formal updated search ran from 1 January 2012 to 31 May 2020, in any healthcare setting or country and focussed on English language publications. In this phase two searches identified 66 901 records. Later, a further check of key journals and citations to identified papers ran from May 2020 to March 2024. In total, 168 papers progressed to full-text appraisal; 62 were identified for inclusion in the update. Then we combined papers from our original and updated reviews.

In the combined review, the literature is dominated by papers from the United States (50/95) and mostly drawn from the Global North. Papers cover various clinical fields, with more on cancer than any other field; 86 of the 95 papers report positive results, of which 70 are purely positive and 16 positive/mixed, meaning there are some negative elements (i.e. aspects where there is a lack of healthcare improvement) in their findings.

Conclusions

The updated review collates a substantial pool of studies, especially when combined with our original review, which are largely positive in terms of the impact of research engagement on processes of care and patient outcomes. Of the potential engagement mechanisms, the review highlights the important role played by research networks. The review also identifies various papers which consider how far there is a “dose effect” from differing amounts of research engagement. Additional lessons come from analyses of equity issues and negative papers. This review provides further evidence of contributions played by systems level research investments such as research networks on processes of care and patient outcomes.

Peer Review reports

There is an often-held assumption that the engagement of clinicians and healthcare organizations in research improves healthcare performance at various levels. This assumption contributed to policy documents from various health organizations promoting research engagement by healthcare providers as a way of improving healthcare, for example, in the United Kingdom [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Therefore, it was believed that policy-makers who make relevant decisions, such as on the allocation of resources for health and health research systems, should have access to evidence on the validity of the assumption. In the United Kingdom, two programmes of the National Institute for Health Research (now called the National Institute for Health and Care Research) (NIHR) decided to commission reviews of the global evidence on this [ 1 , 2 , 3 ].

The wide-ranging brief provided for the second review, which was the original review by the authors of this present paper (published in full as Hanney et al. in 2013 [ 3 ] and more succinctly as Boaz et al. in 2015 [ 2 ]), included the additional aim of conducting a theoretically grounded synthesis to explore the mechanisms by which research engagement might improve healthcare [ 3 ]. The protocol for that study considered pertinent global literature, including on accelerating the adoption of evidence in health systems, and ways to enhance the relevance of the research conducted to the needs of health systems. The final protocol published as part of the Hanney et al. report [ 3 ] then used these ideas to identify possible mechanisms that would be worth analysing to help understand the processes that might be at work when research engagement leads to improved health. Among these was the idea that engaging in conducting research increases the ability and willingness of clinicians to use research findings from the global pool of knowledge, and here the concept of “absorptive capacity” was expected to be useful [ 3 ].

Some analyses focussed on the importance of exploring the relationship between research engagement and improved healthcare to contribute towards understanding of the benefits for healthcare performance in the context of a strong research culture. These papers were reviewed in Australia by Harding et al. in 2017 [ 4 ].

As far as we are aware, these three systematic literature reviews published in the second decade of this century provided the first analyses of the empirical evidence available to support the assumption of improved healthcare from research engagement [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]. Their differing scopes and approaches are summarized briefly in Table  1 .

All three of the reviews reported some evidence of a positive association between research engagement and healthcare performance, but the available evidence was not mature enough to support statements about causality [ 2 ]. Our review [ 2 , 3 ] had the widest scope of the three, reflecting the broad brief given by our NIHR funder. It included an extensive initial mapping exercise, a formal focussed review, and a wider review which drew on the earlier stages to explore, as noted above, the mechanisms by which research engagement might improve healthcare [ 3 ]. Our review identified 33 papers from 9 countries (15 from the United States), 28 of which reported positive findings [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 ]. Even our review concluded, however, that there did not appear to be a well-structured, steadily accumulating body of knowledge about the benefits associated with research engagement.

In the succeeding years, we have identified a continuing and growing interest in this general topic, therefore an updated review seemed desirable to gather more evidence about how far research engagement might lead to improved healthcare and the mechanisms involved. In addition to these general questions, our original review had identified two specific issues that could usefully be considered further. These were research networks as potentially important mechanisms through which research engagement might improve healthcare, and whether greater amounts of research engagement would have a larger beneficial effect. Our original review also covered some aspects of a third issue (health equity) that has subsequently become increasingly important [ 2 , 3 ].

The growing development of research networks has been associated with efforts to move towards more formalized attempts to boost the role of health research systems in accelerating science and facilitating the translation of research into practice [ 2 , 3 ]. However, at the time of our original review, the evidence was still emerging and its availability was heavily skewed by the different timing of the establishment of formal research networks in different countries.

In the United States, various research networks had been set up in the second half of the last century, and most of the early papers on networks and their role came from there [ 2 ]. These networks in the United States are described in the “Glossary of the United States of America and United Kingdom Research Organizations and Networks Discussed in the Papers” (see Additional file 1 ). They include the National Cancer Institute (NCI)-funded Cancer Community Oncology Program (CCOP), established to encourage outreach and improve equity by bringing the advantages of clinical research to cancer patients in their own communities [ 37 ]. In the United Kingdom in contrast, national research networks were not formally created until this century, too late for any potential benefits to patient outcomes to be fully researched and reported prior to our review which started in 2011. However, even in our original review we were aware of concurrent United Kingdom work to measure those outcomes and to improve patient access to clinical research, and identified a need for further evaluations (see Hanney et al. [ 3 ], pp. 48, 83).

Subsequently, we also became increasingly aware of new studies on the effects of the developing research networks, especially in the United Kingdom, and Boaz et al. identified a promising approach in statistical analysis that could help further analysis [ 2 ]. As set out in the Glossary, there have been policy shifts and organizational changes in the United States and the United Kingdom, and there have been further ones elsewhere, which are designed to promote research networks to address the time lag between the production of research and its use in practice, including various efforts to strengthen links between academic centres and community services. There has also been an increasing emphasis, including within research networks, on the potential research contribution of healthcare professionals other than medical professionals.

Our original review had also noted a partly related second issue as worthy of further attention. This is the question of whether the association between research engagement by healthcare providers and improved healthcare outcomes increases with greater amounts of research participation. There was early evidence that it did. This came, in particular, from the 2008 paper by Majumdar et al. [ 26 ] that compared outcomes for patients with angina in hospitals in the United States having a high level of angina research activity with hospitals with low research activity, and those with no research activity. Other papers compared centres with different levels of research activity within a research network [ 23 ]. However, there was little certainty about extent and implications around this issue at that time, although it has become increasingly important with the development of the comprehensive research networks that we summarize in the Glossary. It also has theoretical implications for the exact nature of the association between research engagement and improved healthcare: in our original review we argued that further data on this effect, and on the time an institution was research active, “are needed to provide evidence of causation” (p. 12) [ 2 ].

These findings also have implications for health equity, the third unresolved issue. More outreach by research networks means more access to clinical research and its benefits for more patients. The United States CCOP has been rightly lauded for achieving this [ 37 ], but can that be squared with the emerging finding that higher levels of research participation in specific provider institutions bring greater benefit to the patients in those centres?

Reflection on these uncertainties further strengthened the argument that with all the developments since our original review, it seemed timely in 2020 to revisit this topic to explore and collate what additional understanding had been gained. While conducting the resulting update, we became aware of some more recent developments. A United Kingdom qualitative systematic review was published in 2021 that explored the impact of research activity by healthcare professionals other than medical professionals [ 38 ], and another UK review published in 2023 focussed on research engagement by allied health professionals (AHPs) [ 39 ]. With few exceptions, the papers specifically on nursing and AHPs in these reviews were typically smaller scale than the papers included in our formal review, and/or usually did not include the quantifiable comparisons that featured in most of our included papers. Nevertheless, these reviews usefully illustrate the growing interest in the contribution of these healthcare professionals in countries such as Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom.

In addition, we identified a large-scale study from the United States by Shahian et al. [ 40 ] that was published in 2022 and examined the link between research engagement and improved healthcare performance in 5 major medical fields across 1604 Medicare-participating hospitals. A noticeable facet of the paper by Shahian et al. was their referencing of a large number of papers that we had identified either in our original review, or in the first phase of our updated review [ 40 ].

To ensure our updated review adequately reflected all such developments since May 2020, we conducted a further search in March 2024. The review presented here is based on papers identified in both phases of the updated review, the findings of which are then combined with those from our original review.

Review question

To identify studies, the primary research question used the same approach as Boaz et al. [ 2 , 3 ].

Does research engagement (by clinicians and organizations) improve healthcare performance?

By research engagement, we mean, as in our original review, engagement in research rather than the broader concept of engagement with research, and we are referring to participation in research by healthcare organizations and staff rather than patient participation in trials. Engagement in research is taken to mean, “a deliberate set of intellectual and practical activities undertaken by healthcare staff (including conducting research and playing an active role in the whole research cycle) and organizations (including playing an active role in research networks, partnerships or collaborations)” (p. 2) [ 2 ].

The 2020 decision to complete an update of the previous review [ 2 , 3 ] was informed by a published decision framework for updating systematic reviews [ 41 ]. After completion in 2024 of the comprehensive initial phase of the updated review, including the two searches and considerable subsequent analysis, we recognized, as noted above, that while we had been conducting the review some important further papers had been published. We wanted to incorporate such papers, and so decided to conduct a further search for papers. The design of this final phase (which included a third search) was informed both by the fact that we had already identified a considerable number of papers for the updated review, and by the way new papers in this field were by now much more likely to cite earlier papers, with Shahian et al. [ 40 ] being a prime example. Therefore, we thought it was reasonable to rely to a much greater extent on checking citations to the papers already identified, as explained below.

Search strategy and information sources

Search 1 (update).

The first step in syntax development used the Medline Ovid strategy published by Boaz et al. [ 2 ].

Initial diagnostic testing indicated issues preventing code execution. Due to the syntax comprising several nested terms and Boolean operators, it was rebuilt using recommendations for “single-line” optimization for debugging complex code [ 42 ].

Search 2 (modified)

The syntax for Search 2 was a term modification to capture papers that more explicitly indexed research networks and collaborations. Search 2 necessitated a deeper dive into the full-text content of papers. The decision to search full-text articles reflected observations that the sensitivity of Search 1 was potentially affected by the variable quality (and relevance for our review) of abstracts, a consistent challenge for reviewers [ 43 ]. As a second search also adapted published syntax, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses Literature Search—Extension Checklist (PRISMA-S) reporting protocol was followed [ 44 ]. (The full text for search strategies is provided in “Search Strategy and Syntax Sensitivity”; see Additional file 2 ).

Electronic databases

Nine electronic records collections were used in Search 1: Medline (OVID and EBSCO), EMBASE, PsycInfo (OVID and EBSCO), CINAHL, Web of Science, Health Management and Information Consortium and British Nursing Institute. The mix provided parity with previous reviews and mitigated risk of missed papers by combining general and specialized databases. Different interfaces (e.g. OVID, EBSCO) for the same collection were also included to offset variations due to platform [ 45 ]. Grey literature was not searched: these collections failed to uniquely identify papers in previous reviews on this topic. Search 2 was restricted to the Medline EBSCO Full Text records, which was the collection which yielded the highest hit ratio for relevant papers (see Additional file 2 ).

Other sources

Manual and snowball searching were used in three ways. Firstly, a range of search engines (Google Scholar, PubMed, ProQuest Central, Scopus, the Web of Science Cited Reference Search) were used to track citations for (a) prior reviews as whole papers, (b) the individual studies within these reviews and (c) article reference lists. Secondly, key journals that published studies shortlisted in the previous reviews were hand-checked, including: Implementation Science, PLOS One, BMJ Open and BMC Health Services Research. Thirdly, topic experts suggested papers for consideration.

Search 3 (final phase)

As explained above, we subsequently conducted a further search covering May 2020–March 2024. This consisted of: a hand-search of three of the journals in which papers from the first phase of the updated review had been published (Health Research Policy and Systems, Implementation Science and Medical Care); a check of papers in the two reviews published in this period [ 38 , 39 ]; and a check of citations in this period to all the papers identified both in our original review and in the update’s initial phase.

Eligibility criteria

The following limiters were applied:

Timeframe: 1 January 2012 to 20 March 2024 (inclusive of eprint)

Population: Human (any setting)

Language: English (any country)

Paper type: Academic Journals (scholarly works). Conference papers were admitted as flags for accessible peer-reviewed works (e.g. pre-print) or key teams.

Three criteria were defined, guided by definitions from the original review [ 3 ].

Criterion A: study design

Empirical studies using method/s aligned with health services research, including clinical trials, retrospective cohort and survey methods. Studies with only patient reported outcomes (e.g. satisfaction) were excluded.

Criterion B: healthcare performance

Studies must report an outcome indexing performance assessment for a care process or healthcare improvement. The following were excluded: staff-specific reports alone, (e.g. job satisfaction or morale), policy impacts alone (no flow through to healthcare), descriptions of networks without outcomes data.

Criterion C: research engagement

Explicit demonstration of engagement in research including: agenda-setting, conducting research, participation in action research or in networks where the research involvement is noted. This criterion also allowed engagement implicitly through research network membership, even if a specific study was not recorded, but there was a comparison of healthcare between member and non-member settings. More details about examples that were in scope can be found in Hanney et al. [ 3 , p. 2].

Records management

To efficiently manage the export of the large records for the first two searches, Endnote X9 (Clarivate) was used to combine downloads from different databases and discard software detected duplicates. The endnote library was imported into Rayyan, a free multi-collaborator online screening tool [ 46 ]. Study selection procedures for Searches 1 and 2 followed the same screening/eligibility check sequence.

Screening and eligibility/quality checking

In Rayyan, titles were scanned to exclude papers that were irrelevant, did not meet criteria or were non-exact duplicates. Abstracts of retained records were then screened and classified as “include”, “exclude” or “maybe”. A third screening of “maybe” classifications forced a binary coding of “include” or “exclude”, with comment flags on issues. A final records’ sweep with the Rayyan query function checked for misclassified studies. This four-step screening process was completed by a single reviewer (BG).

Full-text for each provisionally included study was uploaded into Rayyan. The initial eligibility check was completed by three experts who were involved in article screening for Hanney et al. [ 3 ]. As a criterion check and to orient reviewers to the Rayyan platform, a practice phase used 10 randomly sampled records. The abstract was the primary source for expert reviewers, with full-text also available. After the practice task and consensus discussion of criteria, a batch of records (alphabet determined) was assigned to each expert reviewer, to rate each paper as “include”, “exclude” or “maybe” (ratings were unblinded). If the rating pair (i.e. B.G. and an expert from the original review) were both “include”, the paper was progressed to full-text appraisal. If there was disagreement, papers rated as “maybe” were reassigned to another expert reviewer for an opinion, and those rated as “exclude” by an expert reviewer were marked for discard. If consensus for a “maybe” paper could not be reached by discussion, it was progressed to a full text appraisal, conducted by a single reviewer (B.G.) using all available information sources and reviewer ratings.

A final review of all potential “includes” was jointly conducted by team members, including a few papers identified by other sources such as continued manual snowballing from key papers. The study selection procedures for Search 3 mirrored this final step, and so consisted of a review of all potential “includes” conducted jointly by team members.

Study quality was assessed using the mixed-methods appraisal tool (MMAT v2018), on a scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high) [ 47 ]. The MMAT accommodated all designs in the paper set. The majority of the papers have a design which fitted into the MMAT category of quantitative non-randomized. All papers scored good to high quality on the five questions in their relevant MMAT subscale. The lower end of ratings (good) was typically due to lack of information in the article, such as whether and/or how confounding factors may have been identified or managed. Quality ratings were not used to exclude papers, but formed part of the discussion about the quality and contribution of the papers.

Data extraction, coding and ethics

As Rayyan is only a screening platform, a data extraction sheet was created in Excel (v2016) for each included paper. A university research ethics committee deemed the project as not requiring formal ethical approval, due to secondary data mining on anonymized aggregated records.

A large and methodologically diverse mix of papers was identified with a range of different outcomes and outcome measures. The papers were combined through a process of critical interpretive synthesis inspired, as in our original review, by the approach outlined by Dixon-Woods et al. [ 48 ]. This involves adopting an iterative approach to refining the research question, searching the literature and defining and applying codes and categories. It enables the generation and development of theory with strong explanatory power and uses relevance as one measure of quality. Following analysis of the papers in the updated review, we collated the results from the updated review with those from our original review to create one combined set of papers for overall analysis.

Figure  1 summarizes the review literature flow. The two formal searches identified 66 901 records, with 68 further papers coming from other sources, including the March 2024 extension. From these, 168 papers progressed to full-text appraisal, and 62 were identified for inclusion [ 40 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 ].

Flow diagram for literature search

This review updates the previous review conducted by the team [ 2 ]. Table 2 outlines the 95 papers in our combined review: the 62 additional papers in the updated review along with the 33 papers in our original review. The latter 33 papers are shown in italics in Table  2 , which includes details about the study characteristics of all 95 included papers as well as key dimensions of the findings. To complement Table  2 , brief notes on the development and scope of key United States and United Kingdom research networks/organizations discussed in the papers are provided in the “Glossary of the United States of America and United Kingdom Research Organizations and Networks Discussed in the Papers” (see Additional file 1 ).

Study characteristics

Across the 95 papers, 12 countries are either the location for the research engagement described in a single-country study, or the location from which a multi-country study was led, with one paper led from South Africa having authors from a range of African countries (and Yemen) [ 88 ]. The 12 countries are: United States (50 papers), United Kingdom (17), Canada (7), Spain (5), Germany (4), the Netherlands (3), Australia (2), Denmark (2), South Africa (2), China (1), Finland (1) and Sweden (1).

Cancer was the most common field, with 32/95 papers overall. Next came hospital care in general/multi-field/acute care with 16 papers, cardiovascular/stroke (12), substance use disorder (7), dentistry (3), mental health/psychiatry (3) and obstetrics (3).

Main findings

As presented in Table  2 , the key findings from the combined review are presented in terms of the four pairs of binary options, though inevitably some papers did not neatly fit into one category. The first categorization is in terms of the level of analysis explored in different papers; 23 papers compare clinicians, but 72 compare organizations. There is an even higher proportion in the updated review at the organizational level (50/62, 81%) than in our original review (22/33, 67%).

A total of 86 of the 95 papers report positive results, of which 70 are purely positive and 16 are positive/mixed meaning that there are some key negative elements in their findings, that is, important parts of the analysis where a lack of healthcare improvement is identified. Nine papers are negative, of which four are negative-mixed.

The final two pairs of binary options consider just the 86 positive papers. In total, 37/86 report improved health outcomes in terms of reduced mortality or morbidity. A higher proportion of the positive papers in the updated review (30/58, 52%) than in our original review (7/28, 25%) describe such improved health outcomes. There is a corresponding reduction from three quarters (21/28) to a half (28/58) in the proportion of papers solely describing improved processes in terms such as applying proven interventions.

Finally, in terms of the type of impact, 55/86 of the papers describe research engagement leading to a broader impact on healthcare performance. Broad impacts arise when the improved healthcare goes more widely than just being linked to clinicians or healthcare organizations implementing the findings, or processes, from their own research more rapidly/extensively than do others. When the improved healthcare is linked to the results or processes of their own research, that is categorized as specific impact, which is the case in 31/86 papers. Using these various categories, Fig.  2 outlines the findings from the combined review, alongside the findings from our original review, and the updated review. This highlights various trends in terms of the main findings.

Results from Boaz et al. systematic reviews of whether research engagement by health organizations and staff improves healthcare: analysis of original; updated; and combined reviews (and of the 86 positive papers). Green rows (top): original review; Brown rows (middle): updated review; blue rows (bottom): combined review

One further trend in terms of the type of analysis is seen in the 11/95 papers that used bibliometric analysis as an indicator of the extent, and/or quality, of research engagement compared with some measure of the healthcare performance, in terms of processes and/or outcomes [ 30 , 40 , 50 , 51 , 56 , 65 , 76 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 100 ]; 10 of these papers are in the updated review, with just 1 [ 30 ] from our original review. All these 11 papers are positive, but various types of bibliometric analysis are used. The broad categories of academic indicators applied include publication volume [ 95 , 96 ], publication “quality” (for example, as measured by citations) [ 51 ] and a combination of volume and “quality” [ 30 , 40 , 50 , 56 , 65 , 76 , 97 , 100 ]. Of the latter, five relatively small studies suggest that the association with “quality” was stronger than with volume. The bibliometric studies also illustrate the varying levels of analysis at which the included studies in the review are conducted; 4 of the 11 papers compare the academic outputs of clinicians [ 50 , 56 , 96 , 97 ] and 7 make comparisons at an organizational level [ 30 , 40 , 51 , 65 , 76 , 95 , 100 ], focussing variously on academic outputs at ward, department or hospital/trust level.

The combined review allows for a range of issues to be analysed more thoroughly than they had been in our original review. These include issues highlighted in the background such as the role of networks and the “dose effect”. These are examined in turn below, followed by consideration of how far the included studies have addressed various aspects of health equity, and finally an analysis of lessons from the overall portfolio of positive and negative studies.

The role of research networks

The full significance of papers on research networks is seen in the combined review. Using the inclusive definition developed by Laliberte et al. [ 24 ], we have applied the term to various arrangements that, however loosely, give some measure of commonality to the research of multiple healthcare organizations that not only enhance science production, but also share a concern to transfer research findings into clinical practice. About half the papers in the combined review analysed research activity by clinicians or healthcare organizations who were part of research networks of various types.

In the United States, the NCI cancer research networks include the NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centres, the NCI Cooperative Groups and collaborative groups of community hospitals affiliated to the NCI’s CCOP- see the Glossary for its new name. In various ways these networks all include outreach and the engagement of community physicians in their brief; see the Glossary for more details. Their potential was recognized early in the 2005 study by Laliberte et al. [ 24 ] that looked at these networks and concluded that network membership may influence compliance with treatment guidelines, and should therefore be taken into account in predictive models of compliance.

Seven included papers illustrated various aspects of this issue by comparing the processes and outcomes for patients treated at NCI-designated (comprehensive) cancer centres with those treated elsewhere, six of these studies showed better outcomes for patients treated at NCI centres [ 52 , 64 , 80 , 84 , 86 , 106 ], while one paper suggested that despite better processes, patient outcomes were worse at NCI centres. This paper is considered in the section on negative papers below [ 81 ]. Of the positive papers, Paulson et al. showed how the NCI designation was “associated with lower risk of postoperative death and improved long-term survival” (p. 675) [ 86 ], identified possible factors such as better adherence to guidelines, and demonstrated that the better outcomes at NCI-designated centres remained even when compared with non-NCI designated centres with a similar high volume of cases [ 86 ]. Wolfson et al. identified the requirements that underpin the positive association between high-quality research and high-quality care [ 106 ]. These included the mandate NCI centres have to “lead clinical trials, exchange ideas, disseminate findings” (p. 3892), which showed how the centres could act as part of a network. Wolfson et al. continued: “The NCI operates on the belief that a culture of discovery, scientific excellence, transdisciplinary research, and collaboration yields tangible benefits extending far beyond the generation of new knowledge” [ 106 ].

Building on Laliberte et al. [ 24 ], Carpenter et al. demonstrated an association between CCOP membership and accelerated innovation adoption but added the important codicil that it was not possible to “definitively ascertain whether there is a direct causal relationship between the two” [ 54 ].

Improved healthcare has also been associated with membership of the United States practice-based research networks (PBRNs). These networks cover family practice/primary care, dentistry, mental health and substance abuse. Like the CCOP and its affiliates, PBRNs involve practising clinicians in the community who conduct research. The combined review includes seven PBRN papers covering primary care and dentistry, all of which are positive [ 32 , 36 , 66 , 78 , 83 , 92 , 108 ] and one of which describes an international dental PBRN led from the United States that includes three Scandinavian countries [ 66 ].

A total of seven papers from another PBRN, the National Institute on Drug Abuse’s Clinical Trials Network (CTN), also provided evidence of accelerated translation, identified mechanisms through which this might work, and discussed the theoretical frameworks within which those operated [ 5 , 14 , 23 , 49 , 63 , 90 , 91 ]. Thus, Ducharme et al. [ 14 ] and Knudsen et al. [ 23 ] explored Rogers’ notion of the “trialability” [ 110 ] of innovations, that is, how far an innovation may be experimented with on just a limited basis, and Abraham et al. [ 5 ] discussed the role of absorptive capacity [ 111 , 112 ], which they summarized as an organization’s ability to assess and use information [ 5 ]. Rieckmann et al. noted that although the mechanisms involved were not fully understood they appeared “to be influenced by core experiences from network participation” (p. 894) [ 91 ], and Fields et al. [ 63 ] used insights from implementation science to explore the influence of a set of organizational characteristics (including network membership) on innovation adoption [ 113 ].

In an analysis of data on 12 993 transplants conducted in 162 US centres, the 32 centres in the Bone Marrow Transplant trials network were found to have significantly better survival rates than others [ 77 ]. Marmor et al. reported that there was not an association between procedure volume and survival. Rather, they suggested, the better outcomes for those treated in centres in this network could be linked to the nature of trials that required “higher levels of national clinical collaboration and standardization of protocols”, and such collaboration was “likely to generate higher levels of innovation and excellence among clinical colleagues” (p. 92) [ 77 ].

In Germany, one team produced three papers on the improved healthcare performance of hospitals that were part of clinical trials organizations [ 13 , 34 , 94 ]. Two papers described the improved outcomes for patients with ovarian cancer if they were treated in a hospital that belonged to one of two German ovarian cancer clinical trials organizations, in effect research networks [ 13 , 34 ]. They noted that the improved outcomes were not related to patient volume, suggesting instead that possible factors may include hospitals’ participation in the study group’s quality assurance programs and team members attending regular and scientific and educational meetings [ 13 ]. In a follow-up study, the data were analysed in more detail using mediation analysis that showed not just that the research participation of a hospital contributed to superior patient survival, but also began to unpick how it happened, including through better use of surgery and chemotherapy [ 94 ].

Downing et al. noted that, following the 2006 establishment of the NIHR in the United Kingdom, the increase in research activity in networks throughout the English NHS also increased the scope for analysing the benefits of research engagement [ 58 ]. The role of NIHR networks in boosting research engagement, which is then linked to improved healthcare, also covers clinicians such as nurses and AHPs who had traditionally had limited research opportunities. Studies are now showing how they can play an important role by engaging in research because, according to Trusson et al. reporting on a research network for nurses and AHPs, people working in such roles “have opportunities to explore possible solutions to issues that they encounter in their clinical role through academic study” (p. 1) [ 101 ]. Such opportunities can also enhance their clinical skills. More broadly, Downing et al. claimed that, in relation to the NIHR’s clinical trials network, “this natural experiment, presented by the rapid expansion of trial activity across a whole national health system, is perhaps the best opportunity to address the subject though outcomes research” (p. 95) [ 58 ]. This development is discussed in the next section.

The “dose effect” of the extent of research engagement

Evidence indicating a link between the extent of research engagement and the degree of improved healthcare has been accumulating for some time. In the United States, the 1996 study by Brown and Griffiss found that the average acute length of stay (LoS) in Department of Veteran Affairs hospitals was inversely related to the size of research programmes [ 53 ]. Majumdar et al. [ 26 ] used a tertile approach to show that in-hospital mortality decreased as the rate of trial participation increased in the area of unstable angina. In the substance abuse field, early CTN studies also contributed: thus Knudsen et al. [ 23 ] noted that the adoption of buprenorphine therapy by practitioners within the trials’ network was much greater in those programmes in the network that participated in the specific buprenorphine trial than those that had not. In a 2006 study of a sexual health trial in Australia, Morton et al. [ 28 ] identified improved post-trial clinical practice by high-recruiting clinicians, but not by low-recruiting ones.

In our combined set of papers the first use of the specific term “dose effect” to describe the effects of differing amounts of research engagement occurred in Downing et al., who tested the hypothesis that for colorectal cancer (CRC) “high, sustained hospital-level participation in interventional clinical trials improves outcomes for all patients with CRC managed in those research-intensive hospitals” (p. 89) [ 58 ]. They found that high participation in such clinical trials was independently associated with better outcomes and that these effects were not restricted to academic centres or large institutions but were seen across all the NHS Trusts that conducted research on and treated patients with colorectal cancer. They extended their analysis to look at the effects of different levels of research participation and found that the highest levels of participation led to the highest levels of improved outcomes. However, in relation to these findings, Downing et al. were careful to say that, in the absence of the possibility of an RCT, caution was needed if attempting “to infer a causal contribution” (p. 89) from participation in research activity to improved healthcare [ 58 ].

Other United Kingdom database studies support the findings of Downing et al. For example, Ozdemir et al. [ 85 ] compared mortality with research funding per hospital bed in hospitals with high, medium and low levels of research funding and showed that not only was mortality lower in high-funded research hospitals than in other hospitals, but also, on average, hospitals in the middle category had a lower mortality rate than ones with the least research funding. In two studies using NIHR research study activity data from different years, Jonker and Fisher [ 68 , 69 ] showed an inverse correlation between the number of clinical trials/patient participation levels in United Kingdom hospitals and the mortality rate. Lin et al. [ 73 ] used retrospective data to examine the survival rate of the 465 patients (recruited by 60 hospitals) who had participated in an RCT in the NIHR Clinical Research Network (CRN). While they identified a significant association between low trial recruitment and lower survival rates, looking at the volume of patients treated in the disease area by the respective hospitals they report that “no significance was found between hospital throughput and outcomes” (p. 40) [ 73 ].

Further support for the “dose effect” concept comes from the United States and elsewhere. According to Abraham et al., in the substance abuse field “treatment programs participating in a greater number of CTN protocols had significantly higher levels of treatment quality, an association that held after controlling for key organizational characteristics” (p. 232) [ 49 ]. Similarly, Gilbert et al. [ 66 ] reported that members of a dental PBRN who fully participated in the network were more likely to move evidence-based care into everyday practice than members who only partially participated. Seaburg et al. [ 96 ] showed an association between the quantity of resident physicians’ publications and their clinical performance scores during training, and García-Romero et al. claimed that increases in the scientific output of Spanish hospitals made a significant contribution to a reduction of hospital LoS [ 65 ].

In Canada, Tsang et al. [ 103 ] conducted a pre-planned observational study nested within a clinical trial to test how well traditionally non-research active community hospitals could participate in an RCT alongside the traditional RCT sites in academic hospitals. However, while that aspect of the study did show that, in terms of adherence to trial metrics, the community hospitals could successfully participate in studies, outcomes for patients in the trial were significantly better in the traditional research hospitals, although the full reasons for this will need further exploration [ 103 ].

• Health equity

Various aspects of health equity are considered in the included papers, and some of these report attempts to improve health equity. Some population groups are particularly vulnerable. In the United States, for example, Wolfson et al. listed the following groups: “underrepresented minorities, those with low socio-economic status (SES), those with public or no insurance, and those with a significant distance to care” (p. 3886) [ 106 ]. On the basis of its long-held assumption that patient access to research active healthcare providers is beneficial, the NCI has attempted to reduce geographic inequalities in access. In a 1995 paper, Warneke et al. noted that the CCOP was established by the NCI in 1983 with the deliberate intention of spreading the benefits of the clinical research conducted in NCI centres: “The program was designed with the assumption that by participating as equals in the research process, community physicians would be more likely to accept and implement the results in their practices with non-protocol patients” (p. 336) [ 37 ].

Similar moves to encourage wider participation in clinical trials have recently been made in Canada in the nested study described above [ 103 ]. A recent analysis showing higher levels of research activity within the English healthcare system were associated with lower mortality, noted that although the NIHR CRN was established to promote research participation across England, there was still some way to go to ensure greater geographical equity [ 69 ].

Other initiatives, such as the United States minority-based CCOPs described in the Glossary, addressed racial inequalities in relation to access to research engagement and timely evidence-based healthcare. These sometimes overlap with geographic inequalities. Some of the papers on the NCI-designated cancer centres observed with concern that the proportion of certain racial/ethnic groups, including African Americans, who received treatment at these centres compared with non-NCI centres, was lower than for other racial groups [ 64 , 80 , 106 ]. Having noted that African Americans with colon cancer experienced worse outcomes than Caucasian Americans, and suggested that this was partly due to differential treatment, a study by Penn et al. found evidence that African Americans receiving treatment from CCOP providers had benefitted from a seemingly deliberate attempt to boost early access to a recently recommended innovative treatment [ 87 ]. In Australia, Young et al. [ 109 ] reported that the health services, and health research system, of the Aboriginal community work together to try to ensure health research is embedded into activities that improve health, and described a specific example in relation to ear, nose and throat surgery and speech-language pathology services.

Lessons from the overall collection of studies: positive and negative

A wide variety of papers contribute to the combined review’s overall finding that the included studies are overwhelmingly positive. As the section on the “dose effect” illustrates, throughout the time covered by the combined review, individual papers have contributed to a wider understanding that goes beyond specific issues about research networks. Many papers contribute to the analysis of both the strength of the association between research engagement and improved healthcare, and the mechanisms involved. For example, a 2019 US positive study by Fanaroff et al. [ 60 ] identified improved care and outcomes for patients with acute myocardial infarction who were treated at research active hospitals, even after accounting for potential confounders. The authors encapsulated some of the key thinking on research engagement with their conclusion that participation in clinical trials by hospitals “may be emblematic of a culture that embraces novel therapeutics, engages both clinicians and patients, and incentivizes continuous improvement in care” (p. 191) [ 60 ].

While overall the 95 studies included in the combined review are positive, about 10% are categorized as negative. These nine negative papers also provide important insights [ 7 , 11 , 15 , 20 , 25 , 67 , 79 , 81 , 99 ]. For example, existing widespread use of one proven intervention prior to a company-sponsored clinical trial exploring physicians’ adherence to international treatment recommendations meant that the trial had no significant impact on that adherence, although it did increase use of the trial sponsor’s drug [ 7 ]; physicians adopted another trial intervention before it was proven one way or another [ 11 ]; more positively, a unique policy and regulatory environment governing the adoption of another intervention ensured that all hospitals benefitted, not just those in the trial [ 79 ]. Two teams with negative results later conducted further, more comprehensive studies with positive conclusions [ 25 , 26 , 67 , 68 , 69 ]. Six of the seven papers examining whether NCI-designated cancer centres provided patients with better healthcare processes and outcomes are positive [ 52 , 64 , 80 , 84 , 86 , 106 ]. However, one paper suggested that outcomes were worse in these accredited hospitals despite the better healthcare and, in seeking to explain this, drew attention to the factors considered in the accreditation processes used by different organizations and how far they accurately captured the most relevant data [ 81 ].

Our original review set out to find whether there was empirical evidence that supported the often-held assumption that engagement by clinicians and healthcare organizations in research improves healthcare performance at various levels. It concluded that there was some positive evidence but that systematic analysis of the data related to this engagement was in its infancy [ 2 ]. The 62 papers in the updated review, 58 of which are positive, provide further empirical evidence to support the positive conclusions of the original review.

When the papers from both reviews are considered together, they provide a more complete dataset than previously available [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ], and an updated picture of this literature in which the trends identified in our initial analyses [ 3 ] become more apparent. With more than a third of the papers in the combined review (32/95) focussing on aspects of cancer, this is the field overall in which there is the most comprehensive analysis of the link between research engagement and improved healthcare. While the individual cancer papers differ in the strength of the association identified, and most of the papers focus one or other of the main cancer sites, many of the cancer papers analyse the role of research networks – one of the main mechanisms through which it is claimed research engagement improves healthcare.

The combined review reflects policy shifts and organizational changes that occurred first in the United States and later in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, and were designed to address the time lag between the production of research and its use in practice. These include the development of research networks and their associated databases over several decades (accompanied by an improved understanding of their strengths and limitations [ 54 , 64 , 77 , 106 , 108 ]) and efforts to strengthen links between academic centres and community services [ 61 , 87 ]. More recent developments, especially in the United Kingdom, encouraged further deliberate attempts to identify and explore the impacts of research engagement. Research teams were, for example, better able to study the real-world impacts of system-level mechanisms such as research networks as they became more formalized and embedded in national health and science structures [ 58 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 85 , 93 , 101 ].

Across the board, within and beyond networks, there is also further evidence about the mechanisms by which research engagement might improve healthcare, including the ones identified in our original review. The role of strong evidence-based protocols developed for RCTs, but contributing to improved healthcare more widely in research active healthcare sites, was highlighted in various studies [ 77 , 98 , 105 ]. Papers also identified the importance of providing evidence-based/guideline consistent care, which could also be linked to a culture of discovery, excellence and collaboration [ 40 , 60 , 62 , 64 , 77 , 84 , 86 , 87 , 106 ]. There were also more nuanced mechanisms at the speciality and clinician levels, such as the use of multi-disciplinary coordination of care in radiation therapy treatment [ 107 ] and practitioner skill development in substance abuse work [ 90 ]. Similar practitioner skill development was also reported among nurses and AHPs, including in the wider literature [ 31 , 38 , 39 , 62 , 70 , 101 ].

In the combined review it also became easier to see connections across this diverse literature. It was possible to identify research teams that had worked together on multiple studies and to explore the extent of cross referencing. In the United States, for example, the CTN of the drug abuse institute had been created to emulate the CCOP, and a centre was established to assess the CTN’s impact [ 114 ]. Analysis of this research network highlighted its role both in conducting research that was relevant to the “real-world” needs of clinical settings, and in enhancing evidence-adoption by healthcare organizations and staff [ 114 ]. Many of the papers from this substance abuse CTN [ 23 , 49 , 90 ] referenced each other and also cross-referenced key cancer papers [ 8 , 24 , 54 ], and there was common use of the same early sources [ 110 , 112 , 115 , 116 ]. These interactions prompted ongoing methodological development, strengthened understanding of theoretical concepts, and supported shared learning across the specialities. Additionally, themes that had been recognized in the original review, including concepts such as absorptive capacity [ 5 , 111 ], were further explored and tested in new contexts, even if the same literature was not always drawn upon [ 40 , 65 ].

In the combined review, the nature and strength of the association found between research engagement and improved health varies enormously among the 86 positive papers, even among those that describe the role of research networks. One approach that begins to identify where evidence might be strongest was noted in the original review as being the important concept of the “dose effect”, even if it was not specifically labelled as such [ 26 ]. However, the combined review can now more fully consider the concept because evidence about this greatly increased as the scope of the papers included has increased. There are many more studies where all the clinicians or organizations compared are engaged in research but to varying extents and/or with different levels of resources, for example within a trial [ 28 , 50 , 59 , 73 , 93 , 103 , 107 ] or within a network [ 23 , 33 , 49 , 51 , 66 , 68 , 69 , 85 , 95 ]. The inclusion of papers regarding differences within trials, and the emergence of the importance of the “dose effect”, have implications for both (a) how the issue of research engagement is analysed and (b) how far efforts to enhance research engagement should be concentrated or spread widely across a system.

In relation to the first of these issues, when considering how research engagement is analysed, the key question morphs somewhat: it is no longer simply whether research engagement improves healthcare performance compared with no research engagement, rather, it is whether a larger amount of research engagement improves healthcare performance by more than a smaller level of engagement (and, if so, by how much). Answers to these questions could then feed back to strengthen the evidence for a positive association between research engagement and improved healthcare performance.

In relation to the second question, about the concentration or wide distribution of research funding, analyses might have to consider the context and trade-offs in terms of benefits for improved health and health equity. The widespread distribution of research funding across the health system could maximize the number of patients who might benefit, but a more concentrated approach, with a higher dose of research engagement in a smaller number of hospitals, could maximize the benefit for patients in such centres.

Research infrastructures in countries such as the United States and United Kingdom have been developed to enhance the relationship between health and health research systems, and the evidence from our combined review suggests that these changes have been positive. In both systems, but particularly in the United Kingdom, there have been deliberate attempts to fund major centres of research in leading healthcare facilities, as well as to spread research funding more widely to healthcare organizations across the country, but this impetus needs to be maintained if the full benefits of research engagement are to be realized.

Such an argument is reinforced by the conclusions of a major recent analysis of progress in the United Kingdom in engaging healthcare staff in research and building research capacity. The findings from the study suggest that many healthcare staff in the United Kingdom are interested in being involved in research, there are supportive national policies and strategies in place and there has been some important progress. However, achieving widespread involvement “will only be possible by focusing more on how healthcare organizations embed and support research activity through organizational policies which are supported by the wider research support and funding infrastructure. This is an essential part of a system-based approach to developing and supporting research engagement” (p. 356) [ 117 ]. The progress possible, and the potential benefits of trying to build a health research system embedded into a healthcare system, but also the full range of substantial challenges, have also recently been explored in a hospital and regional healthcare system in northern Queensland, Australia [ 118 , 119 ]. Studies such as these indicate that this combined review could provide timely evidence to further the challenging task of improving healthcare by boosting engagement in health research.

Strengths and limitations

The combined review contains a considerable number of papers from diverse perspectives, but the literature is drawn predominantly from the United States and the Global North, thus the conclusions may not be appropriate in different contexts, including in the Global South. This, perhaps, partly reflects the inclusion criteria of papers in English only. While the increasing use of bibliometrics as an indicator of research engagement has widened the range of positive studies available, differing claims as to the most appropriate measure of research publications challenge consistent interpretation of the data and indicate there is more work to do. Furthermore, it is important to recognize that the national policy, noted in one paper, of attaching promotion and bonuses for clinicians to publish in journals with an impact factor of at least three [ 97 ] runs contrary to the internationally widely endorsed Declaration on Research Assessment [ 120 ].

The complexity of this literature (with many generic terms such as “research” and “engagement”), and the tangential approach of some papers to the broad question of whether research engagement improves performance, posed considerable challenges. It helped enormously that this time around, we were able to build on our experience in the original review. We adopted a somewhat more extensive approach to the formal search in the updated review, and we identified some papers that we had missed in the original review. We were aided by the generally greater clarity in later papers. We are now able, therefore, to present a more nuanced understanding of this field, building on our experience in the original review. In particular, we have found considerably more evidence on two topics identified as important in our original review, and on their implications for health equity: the role of research networks and consideration of how far there is a dose effect with regard to the degrees of research engagement. On both topics the combined review has strong papers showing important healthcare improvements even after considering potential confounders such as patient volume [ 8 , 13 , 26 , 40 , 58 , 73 , 77 , 84 , 85 , 86 ]. However, the failure of some papers to address such confounders [ 59 , 107 ] means some weaknesses in the overall analysis remain, and we are still not able to undertake any meta-analysis as the included literature remains very diverse.

We have now included a significant range of largely positive papers in the combined review. However, lack of resources meant we were not able to replicate our original review’s [ 2 , 3 ] structured analysis of the wider range of papers identified as making many relevant and illuminating points related to the topic, but not meeting the review’s inclusion criteria. For example, while the combined review does include some consideration of health equity issues, there were papers taken to full paper review that were not in the end included but which provide considerably more evidence [ 121 , 122 ].

Future possible work

The system-based approaches for expanding the amount of research in healthcare systems that are mentioned above continue to provide important opportunities for further work on exploring the relationship between research engagement and improved healthcare, including the implications for health equity. Likewise, improvements in the identification and collection of relevant data and developments in statistics have prompted increasingly sophisticated analyses, sometimes using approaches developed in other fields, and could continue to do so [ 65 , 90 , 94 ]. There has also been increasingly sophisticated use of bibliometrics, and there are likely to be continuing opportunities to apply such approaches to more countries. However, the warning from Downing et al. that caution is needed if attempting “to infer a causal contribution” from research participation to improved health outcomes [ 58 ], as well as frequent mention of similar disclaimers in other papers [ 8 , 40 , 54 , 59 , 69 , 74 ], is a reminder that more work is needed.

While some of our papers have claimed that the costs of research engagement are broadly covered by the associated reduced LoS [ 53 , 65 ], further research might be useful around the costs associated with research engagement and how these relate to reported benefits. Such studies could add to the existing large-scale studies showing the considerable monetary value of the health and economic gains resulting from health research [ 123 ].

The insights revealed by the negative papers, particularly in relation to the contexts in which research and research networks operate [ 99 ], could usefully be further explored. Merkow et al. [ 81 ], the one negative paper out of seven papers included on the NCI-designated centres, raises issues about the accuracy, or perhaps appropriateness, of the measurement used by various organizations to accredit cancer centres. These issues have also been explored by various teams [ 122 , 124 , 125 ] but could perhaps be worth further examination because the findings from Merkow et al. are so starkly different from those of other papers included in our review.

Finally, there are increasing opportunities, as well as a growing need, to address the limitations identified above (and also noted in the review by Chalmers et al. [ 39 ]) and go beyond the formal inclusion criteria of this review. A major area that could usefully be incorporated into an overall analysis of the field relates to the impact of the growing interest in research engagement strategies [ 126 ]. This includes the efforts to enhance research roles for healthcare professionals other than medical professionals [ 38 ], and the increasing number of organizational arrangements within health and health research systems for partnerships that seek to boost the production and use of relevant evidence [ 127 , 128 ].

Previous reviews [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ] have investigated the association between research engagement and improvements in healthcare performance. This study updates and extends the most comprehensive of these reviews [ 2 , 3 ], and combines its findings with those from that original review to produce a more substantial pool of studies, which are largely positive in terms of the impact of research engagement on processes of care and patient outcomes. Of potential mechanisms, the combined review highlights the important role played by research networks and further identifies the various ways the research engagement facilitated by them operates to improve healthcare. The review also draws together a set of papers which consider how far there is a research engagement “dose effect”. Given the difficulty of conducting randomized controlled trials of large-scale research engagement initiatives, studies of the dose effect offer another approach to understanding the potential contribution and complexities of research engagement, including the implications for health equity. This review provides further evidence of the important contribution played by systems-level research investments such as research networks on processes of care and patient outcomes.

Availability of data and materials

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Abbreviations

Allied health professionals

Clinical research network

Clinical trials network

Community Clinical Oncology Program

Length of stay

Mixed-methods appraisal tool

National Cancer Institute

National Health Service

National Institute for Health (and Care) Research

Practice-based research network

Research and development

Randomized controlled trials

Clarke M, Loudon K. Effects on patients of their healthcare practitioner’s or institution’s participation in clinical trials: a systematic review. Trials. 2011;12:16. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-12-16 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Boaz A, Hanney S, Jones T, Soper B. Does the engagement of clinicians and organisations in research improve healthcare performance: a three-stage review. BMJ Open. 2015;5: e009415. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009415 .

Hanney S, Boaz A, Jones T, Soper B. Engagement in research: an innovative three-stage review of the benefits for health-care performance. Health Serv Deliv Res. 2013;1:8. https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr01080 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Harding K, Lynch L, Porter J, Taylor NF. Organisational benefits of a strong research culture in a health service: a systematic review. Aust Health Rev. 2017;41:45–53. https://doi.org/10.1071/AH15180 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Abraham AJ, Knudsen HK, Rothrauff TC, Roman PM. The adoption of alcohol pharmacotherapies in the clinical trials network: the influence of research network participation. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2010;38:275–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2010.01.003 .

Adler MW. Changes in local clinical practice following an experiment in medical care: evaluation of evaluation. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1978;32:143–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.32.2.143 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Andersen M, Kragstrup J, Sondergaard J. How conducting a clinical trial affects physicians’ guideline adherence and drug preferences. JAMA. 2006;295:2759–64. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.23.2759 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Carpenter WR, Reeder-Hayes K, Bainbridge J, Meyer A-M, Amos KD, Weiner BJ, et al. The role of organizational affiliations and research networks in the diffusion of breast cancer treatment innovation. Med Care. 2011;49:172–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182028ff2 .

Chaney EF, Rubenstein LV, Liu C-F, Yano EM, Bolkan C, Lee M, et al. Implementing collaborative care for depression treatment in primary care: a cluster randomized evaluation of a quality improvement practice redesign. Implement Sci. 2011;6:121. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-121 .

Chen AY, Schrag N, Hao Y, Flanders WD, Kepner J, Stewart A, et al. Changes in treatment of advanced laryngeal cancer 1985–2001. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2006;135:831–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otohns.2006.07.012 .

Clark WF, Garg AX, Blake PG, Rock GA, Heidenheim AP, Sackett DL. Effect of awareness of a randomized controlled trial on use of experimental therapy. JAMA. 2003;290:1351–5. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.290.10.1351 .

Das D, Ishaq S, Harrison R, Kosuri K, Harper E, Decaestecker J, et al. Management of Barrett’s esophagus in the UK: overtreated and underbiopsied but improved by the introduction of a national randomised trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103:1079–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2008.01790.x .

du Bois A, Rochon J, Lamparter C, Pfisterer J, for the Organkommission OVAR. Pattern of care and impact of participation in clinical studies on the outcome in ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2005;15:183–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1438.2005.15202.x .

Ducharme LJ, Knudsen HK, Roman PM, Johnson JA. Innovation adoption in substance abuse treatment: exposure, trialability, and the clinical trials network. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2007;32:321–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2006.05.021 .

Goldberg HI, Neighbor WE, Hirsch IB, Cheadle AD, Ramsey SD, Gore E. Evidence-based management: using serial firm trials to improve diabetes care quality. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 2002;28:155–66.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hall C, Sigford B, Sayer N. Practice changes associated with the Department of Veterans Affairs’ Family Care Collaborative. J Gen Int Med. 2010;25(Suppl. 1):18–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-009-1125-3 .

Hébert-Croteau N, Brisson J, Latreille J, Blanchette C, Deschenes L. Variations in the treatment of early-stage breast cancer in Quebec between 1988 and 1994. CMAJ. 1999;161:951–5.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Janni W, Kiechle M, Sommer H, Rack B, Gauger K, Heinrigs M, et al. Study participation improves treatment strategies and individual patient care in participating centers. Anticancer Res. 2006;26:3661–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-9776(05)80107-9 .

Jha P, Deboer D, Sykora K, Naylor CD. Characteristics and mortality outcomes of thrombolysis trial participants and nonparticipants: a population-based comparison. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996;27:1335–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/0735-1097(96)00018-6 .

Jones B, Ratzer E, Clark J, Zeren F, Haun W. Does peer-reviewed publication change the habits of surgeons? Am J Surg. 2000;180:566–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9610(00)00495-5 .

Karjalainen S, Palva I. Do treatment protocols improve end results? A study of survival of patients with multiple myeloma in Finland. BMJ. 1989;299:1069–72. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.299.6707.1069 .

Kizer JR, Cannon CP, McCabe CH, Mueller HS, Schweiger MJ, Davis VG, et al. Trends in the use of pharmacotherapies for acute myocardial infarction among physicians who design and/or implement randomized trials vs physicians in routine clinical practice: the MILIS-TIMI experience. Am Heart J. 1999;137:79–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-8703(99)70462-x .

Knudsen HK, Abraham AJ, Johnson JA, Roman PM. Buprenorphine adoption in the national drug abuse treatment clinical trials network. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2009;37:307–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2008.12.004 .

Laliberte L, Fennell ML, Papandonatos G. The relationship of membership in research networks to compliance with treatment guidelines for early-stage breast cancer. Med Care. 2005;43:471–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000160416.66188.f5 .

Majumdar SR, Chang W-C, Armstrong PW. Do the investigative sites that take part in a positive clinical trial translate that evidence into practice? Am J Med. 2002;113:140–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9343(02)01166-X .

Majumdar SR, Roe MT, Peterson ED, Chen AY, Gibler WB, Armstrong PW. Better outcomes for patients treated at hospitals that participate in clinical trials. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:657–62. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2007.124 .

Meineche-Schmidt V, Hvenegaard A, Juhl HH. Participation in a clinical trial influences the future management of patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in general practice. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2006;24:1117–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.03046.x .

Morton AN, Bradshaw CS, Fairley CK. Changes in the diagnosis and management of bacterial vaginosis following clinical research. Sex Health. 2006;3:183–5. https://doi.org/10.1071/SH06024 .

Pancorbo-Hidalgo PL, Garcia-Fernandez FP, Lopez-Medina IM, Lopez-Ortega J. Pressure ulcer care in Spain: nurses’ knowledge and clinical practice. J Adv Nurs. 2007;58:327–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04236.x .

Pons J, Sais C, Illa C, Méndez R, Suñen E, Casas M, et al. Is there an association between the quality of hospitals’ research and their quality of care? J Health Serv Res Policy. 2010;15:204–9. https://doi.org/10.1258/jhsrp.2010.009125 .

Puoane T, Sanders D, Ashworth A, Chopra M, Strasser S, McCoy D. Improving the hospital management of malnourished children by participatory research. Int J Qual Health Care. 2004;16:31–40. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzh002 .

Rhyne R, Sussman AL, Fernald D, Weller N, Daniels E, Williams RL, et al. Reports of persistent change in the clinical encounter following research participation: a report from the primary care multiethnic network (PRIME Net). J Am Board Fam Med. 2011;24:496–502. https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2011.05.100295 .

Rich AL, Tata LJ, Free CM, Stanley RA, Peake MD, Baldwin DR, et al. How do patient and hospital features influence outcomes in small-cell lung cancer in England? Br J Cancer. 2011;105:746–52. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2011.310 .

Rochon J, du Bois A. Clinical research in epithelial ovarian cancer and patients’ outcome. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(Suppl. 7):vii16–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdr421 .

Salbach NM, Guilcher SJ, Jaglal SB, Davis DA. Determinants of research use in clinical decision making among physical therapists providing services post-stroke: a cross-sectional study. Implement Sci. 2010;5:77. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-77 .

Siegel RM, Bien J, Lichtenstein P, Davis J, Khoury JC, Knight JE, et al. A safety-net antibiotic prescription for otitis media: the effects of a PBRN study on patients and practitioners. Clin Pediatr. 2006;45:518–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0009922806290567 .

Warnecke R, Johnson T, Kaluzny A, Ford L. The community clinical oncology program: its effect on clinical practice. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 1995;21:336–9.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Newington L, Wells M, Adonis A, Bolton L, Bolton Saghdaoui L, et al. A qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis exploring the impacts of clinical academic activity by healthcare professionals outside medicine. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21:400. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06354-y .

Chalmers S, Hill J, Connell L, Ackerley S, Kulkarni A, Roddam H. The value of allied health professional research engagement on healthcare performance: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023;23:766. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-09555-9 .

Shahian DM, McCloskey D, Liu X, Schneider E, Cheng D, Mort EA. The association of hospital research publications and clinical quality. Health Serv Res. 2022;57(3):587–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.13947 .

Garner P, Hopewell S, Chandler J, MacLehose H, Akl EA, Bayene J, et al. When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist. BMJ. 2016;354: i3507. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i3507 .

Bramer WM, De Jonge GB, Rethlefsen ML, Mast F, Kleijnen J. A systematic approach to searching: an efficient and complete method to develop literature searches. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018;106:531–41. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i3507 .

Beller EM, Glasziou PP, Altman DG, Hopewell S, Bastian H, Chalmers I, et al. PRISMA for abstracts: reporting systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts. PLoS Med. 2013;10:e1001419. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001419 .

Rethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, Ayala AP, Moher D, Page MJ, et al. PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. Sys Rev. 2021;10:39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z .

Younger P, Boddy K. When is a search not a search? A comparison of searching the AMED complementary health database via EBSCOhost, OVID and DIALOG. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26:126–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2008.00785.x .

Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan—A web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5:210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4 .

Hong QN, Pluye P, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, et al. The mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) version 2018. User guide. http://mixedmethodsappraisaltoolpublic.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/127916259/MMAT_2018_criteria-manual_2018-08-01_ENG.pdf . Accessed 7 July 2024.

Dixon-Woods M, Cavers D, Agarwal S, et al. Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:35. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-6-35 .

Abraham AJ, Knudsen HK, Roman PM. The relationship between clinical trial network protocol involvement and quality of substance use disorder treatment. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2014;46:232–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2013.08.021 .

Alotaibi NM, Ibrahim GM, Wang J, Guha D, Mamdani M, Schweizer TA, et al. Neurosurgeon academic impact is associated with clinical outcomes after clipping of ruptured intracranial aneurysms. PLoS ONE. 2017;12: e0181521. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181521 .

Bennett WO, Bird JH, Burrows SA, Counter PR, Reddy VM. Does academic output correlate with better mortality rates in NHS trusts in England? Public Health. 2012;126(Suppl 1):S40–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2012.05.021 .

Birkmeyer NJ, Goodney PP, Stukel TA, Hillner BE, Birkmeyer JD. Do cancer centers designated by the National Cancer Institute have better surgical outcomes? Cancer. 2005;103(3):435–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.20785 .

Brown A, Griffiss M. Effect of integrated research programs on health care systems and costs. Mil Med. 1996;161:691–5. https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/161.11.691 .

Carpenter WR, Meyer AM, Wu Y, Qaqish B, Sanoff HK, Goldberg RM, et al. Translating research into practice: the role of provider-based research networks in the diffusion of an evidence-based colon cancer treatment innovation. Med Care. 2012;50:737–48. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e31824ebe13 .

Corrigan MH, Glass HE. Physician participation in clinical studies and subsequent prescribing of new drugs. Pharm Ther. 2005;30(1):60–6.

Google Scholar  

de Arriba-Enriquez J, Sanz-Casado E, Vieta E, Rapado-Castro M, Arango C. Quality of care in psychiatry is related to research activity. Eur Psychiatry. 2021;64(1): e53. https://doi.org/10.1192/j.eurpsy.2021.16 .

de Lange TS, Roos C, Bloemenkamp KW, Bolte AC, Duvekot JJ, Franssen MT, et al. Impact of a randomized trial on maintenance tocolysis on length of hospital admission of women with threatened preterm labor in the Netherlands. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015;186:8–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.12.003 .

Downing A, Morris EJ, Corrigan N, Sebag-Montefiore D, Finan PJ, Thomas JD, et al. High hospital research participation and improved colorectal cancer survival outcomes: a population-based study. Gut. 2017;66:89–96. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2015-311308 .

Eaton BR, Pugh SL, Bradley JD, Masters G, Kavadi VS, Narayan S, et al. Institutional enrollment and survival among NSCLC patients receiving chemoradiation: NRG oncology radiation therapy oncology group (RTOG) 0617. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016;108(9): djw034. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djw034 .

Fanaroff AC, Vora AN, Chen AY, Mathews R, Udell JA, Roe MT, et al. Hospital participation in clinical trials for patients with acute myocardial infarction: results from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Am Heart J. 2019;214:184–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2019.05.011 .

Farquhar DR, Masood MM, Lenze NR, Sheth S, Patel SN, Lumley C, et al. Academic affiliation and surgical volume predict survival in head and neck cancer patients receiving surgery. Laryngoscope. 2021;131:E479–88. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.28744 .

Fernández-Domínguez JC, De Pedro-Gómez JE, Jiménez-López R, Romero-Franco N, Bays Moneo AB, Oliva-Pascual-Vaca Á, et al. Physiotherapists’ evidence-based practice profiles by HS-EBP questionnaire in Spain: a cross-sectional normative study. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(6): e0269460. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269460 .

Fields D, Knudsen HK, Roman PM. Implementation of network for the improvement of addiction treatment (NIATx) processes in substance use disorder treatment centers. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2016;43:354–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-015-9466-7 .

Fong ZV, Chang DC, Hur C, et al. Variation in long-term oncologic outcomes by type of cancer center accreditation: an analysis of a SEER-Medicare population with pancreatic cancer. Am J Surg. 2020;220(1):29–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2020.03.035 .

García-Romero A, Escribano Á, Tribó JA. The impact of health research on length of stay in Spanish public hospitals. Res Policy. 2017;46:591–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.01.006 .

Gilbert GH, Gordan VV, Funkhouser EM, Rindal DB, Fellows JL, Qvist V, et al. Caries treatment in a dental practice-based research network: movement toward stated evidence-based treatment. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2013;41:143–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdoe.12008 .

Jonker L, Fisher SJ. NHS Trusts’ clinical research activity and overall CQC performance—Is there a correlation? Public Health. 2015;129:1491–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2015.07.026 .

Jonker L, Fisher SJ. The correlation between National Health Service trusts’ clinical trial activity and both mortality rates and care quality commission ratings: a retrospective cross-sectional study. Public Health. 2018;157:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2017.12.022 .

Jonker L, Fisher SJ, Badgett RG. Relationship between staff thriving, through engagement and research activity, and hospital-related outcome measures: a retrospective cross-sectional study. J Healthc Qual Res. 2021;36(3):128–35.

Kirby K, Brandling J, Robinson M, Thomas M, Voss S, Benger J. The experiences of EMS providers taking part in a large randomised trial of airway management during out of hospital cardiac arrest, and the impact on their views and practice. Results of a survey and telephone interviews. Resuscitation. 2020;149:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.01.034 .

Kirwan CC, Al Sarakbi W, Loncaster J, Chan HY, Thompson AM, Wishart GC. Tumour bed clip localisation for targeted breast radiotherapy: compliance is proportional to trial-related research activity: tumour bed clip localisation in breast radiotherapy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;40:158–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2013.11.016 .

Levan JM, Brion LP, Wrage LA, Gantz MG, Wyckoff MH, Sánchez PJ, et al. Change in practice after the surfactant, positive pressure and oxygenation randomised trial. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2014;99:F386–90. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2014-306057 .

Lin DJ, McConkey CC, Nankivell P, Dunn J, Mehanna H. The impact of institutional clinical trial recruitment versus hospital volume on survival outcomes of patients with head and neck cancer: an analysis of the PET-NECK trial outcomes, UKCRN portfolio, and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) in England. Oral Oncol. 2018;85:40–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2018.08.006 .

Litjens RJ, Oude Rengerink K, Danhof NA, Kruitwagen RF, Mol BW. Does recruitment for multicenter clinical trials improve dissemination and timely implementation of their results? A survey study from the Netherlands. Clin Trials. 2013;10:915–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774513504150 .

Ljunggren M, Weibull CE, Rosander E, et al. Hospital factors and metastatic surgery in colorectal cancer patients, a population-based cohort study. BMC Cancer. 2022;22:907. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-022-10005-8 .

Manes E, Tchetchik A, Tobol Y, Durst R, Chodick G. An empirical investigation of “physician congestion” in US University Hospitals. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16:761. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16050761 .

Marmor S, Begun J, Abraham J, et al. The impact of center accreditation on hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Bone Marrow Transplant. 2015;50:87–94. https://doi.org/10.1038/bmt.2014.219 .

McBride R, Leroux B, Lindblad A, Williams OD, Lehmann M, Rindal DB, et al. Measuring the impact of practice-based research networks on member dentists in the Collaboration on Networked Dental and Oral Health Research, CONDOR. J Dent. 2013;41:393–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2013.03.005 .

McCarthy FH, Groeneveld PW, Kobrin D, Mcdermott KM, Wirtalla C, Desai ND. Effect of clinical trial experience on transcatheter aortic valve replacement outcomes. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8: e002234. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.114.002234 .

McDaniels-Davidson C, Feng CH, Martinez ME, Canchola AJ, Gomez SL, Nodora JN, et al. Improved survival in cervical cancer patients receiving care at National Cancer Institute—Designated cancer centers. Cancer. 2022;128:3479–86. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.34404 .

Merkow RP, Chung JW, Paruch JL, Bentrem DJ. Center accreditation and performance on publicly reported quality measures. Ann Surg. 2014;259(6):1091–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000000542 .

Meyer AM, Reeder-Hayes KE, Liu H, Wheeler SB, Penn D, Weiner BJ, et al. Differential receipt of sentinel lymph node biopsy within practice-based research networks. Med Care. 2013;51:812–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e31829c8ca4 .

Mold JW, Aspy CB, Smith PD, Zink T, Knox L, Lipman PD, et al. Leveraging practice-based research networks to accelerate implementation and diffusion of chronic kidney disease guidelines in primary care practices: a prospective cohort study. Implement Sci. 2014;9:169. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-014-0169-x .

Murimwa GZ, Karalis JD, Meier J, et al. Hospital designations and their impact on guideline-concordant care and survival in pancreatic cancer. Do they matter? Ann Surg Oncol. 2023;30:4377–87. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-023-13308-7 .

Ozdemir BA, Karthikesalingam A, Sinha S, Poloniecki JD, Hinchliffe RJ, Thompson MM, et al. Research activity and the association with mortality. PLoS ONE. 2015;10: e0118253. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118253 .

Paulson EC, Mitra N, Sonnad S, Armstrong K, Wirtalla C, Kelz RR, et al. National cancer institute designation predicts improved outcomes in colorectal cancer surgery. Ann Surg. 2008;248:675–86. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e318187a757 .

Penn DC, Chang Y, Meyer AM, Defilippo Mack C, Sanoff HK, Stitzenberg KB, et al. Provider-based research networks may improve early access to innovative colon cancer treatment for African Americans treated in the community. Cancer. 2015;121:93–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29028 .

Prendergast EA, Perkins S, Engel ME, Cupido B, Francis V, Joachim A, et al. Participation in research improves overall patient management: insights from the global rheumatic heart disease registry (REMEDY). Cardiovasc J Afr. 2018;29:98–105. https://doi.org/10.5830/CVJA-2017-054 .

Rai A, Nastoupil LJ, Williams JN, Lipscomb J, Ward KC, Howard DH, et al. Patterns of use and survival outcomes of positron emission tomography for initial staging in elderly follicular lymphoma patients. Leuk Lymphoma. 2017;58:1570–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/10428194.2016.1253836 .

Rieckmann TR, Abraham AJ, Bride BE. Implementation of motivational interviewing in substance use disorder treatment: research network participation and organizational compatibility. J Addict Med. 2016;10:402–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/ADM.0000000000000251 .

Rieckmann TR, Abraham AJ, Kovas AE, Mcfarland BH, Roman PM. Impact of research network participation on the adoption of buprenorphine for substance abuse treatment. Addict Behav. 2014;39:889–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2014.01.016 .

Rindal DB, Flottemesch TJ, Durand EU, Godlevsky OV, Schmidt AM, Gilbert GH. Practice change toward better adherence to evidence-based treatment of early dental decay in the National Dental PBRN. Implement Sci. 2014;9:177. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-014-0177-x .

Robinson TG, Wang X, Durham AC, Ford GA, Liao J, Littlewood S, et al. The National Institute for Health Research Hyperacute Stroke Research Centres and the ENCHANTED trial: the impact of enhanced research infrastructure on trial metrics and patient outcomes. Health Res Policy Syst. 2019;17:19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-019-0417-2 .

Rochon J, Du Bois A, Lange T. Mediation analysis of the relationship between institutional research activity and patient survival. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-9 .

Salge TO, Vera A. Hospital innovativeness and organizational performance: evidence from English public acute care. Health Care Manag Rev. 2009;34:54–67. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.HMR.0000342978.84307.80 .

Seaburg LA, Wang AT, West CP, Reed DA, Halvorsen AJ, Engstler G, et al. Associations between resident physicians’ publications and clinical performance during residency training. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16:22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0543-2 .

Shen M, Liang X, Li L, Wu Y, Yang Y, Zingg R. The association of attending physicians’ publications and patients’ readmission rates: evidence from tertiary hospitals in china using a retrospective data analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(15):9760. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19159760 .

Siracuse JJ, Goodney PP, Menard MT, Rosenfield K, Van Over M, Hamza T, et al. Participation in a chronic limb threatening ischemia randomized trial is inversely correlated with regional amputation rate in limb threatening ischemia patients. Ann Surg. 2021;274(4):621–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000005058 .

Tan HJ, Meyer AM, Kuo TM, Smith AB, Wheeler SB, Carpenter WR, et al. Provider-based research networks and diffusion of surgical technologies among patients with early-stage kidney cancer. Cancer. 2015;121:836–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29144 .

Tchetchik A, Grinstein A, Manes E, Shapira D, Durst R. From research to practice: which research strategy contributes more to clinical excellence? Comparing high-volume versus high-quality biomedical research. PLoS ONE. 2015;10: e0129259. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129259 .

Trusson D, Rowley E, Bramley L. A mixed-methods study of challenges and benefits of clinical academic careers for nurses, midwives and allied health professionals. BMJ Open. 2019;9: e030595. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030595 .

Tsang Y, Ciurlionis L, Kirby AM, Locke I, Venables K, Yarnold JR, et al. Clinical impact of IMPORT HIGH trial (CRUK/06/003) on breast radiotherapy practices in the United Kingdom. Br J Radiol. 2015;88:20150453. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20150453 .

Tsang JLY, Binnie A, Duan EH, Johnstone J, Heels-Ansdell D, Reeve B. Academic and community ICUs participating in a critical care randomized trial: a comparison of patient characteristics and trial metrics. Crit Care Explor. 2022;4(11): e0794. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000794 .

Van Der Tuuk K, Koopmans CM, Groen H, Mol BW, Van Pampus MG. Impact of the HYPITAT trial on doctors’ behaviour and prevalence of eclampsia in the Netherlands. BJOG. 2011;118:1658–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.03138.x .

Venables K, Tsang Y, Ciurlionis L, Coles CE, Yarnold JR. Does participation in clinical trials influence the implementation of new techniques? A look at changing techniques in breast radiotherapy in the UK. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2012;24:e100–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2012.06.010 .

Wolfson JA, Sun CL, Wyatt LP, Hurria A, Bhatia S. Impact of care at comprehensive cancer centers on outcome: results from a population-based study. Cancer. 2015;121(21):3885–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29576 .

Wuthrick EJ, Zhang Q, Machtay M, Rosenthal DI, Nguyen-Tan PF, Fortin A, et al. Institutional clinical trial accrual volume and survival of patients with head and neck cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(2):156–64. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2014.56.5218 .

Yawn BP, Pace W, Dietrich A, Bertram S, Kurland M, Graham D, et al. Practice benefit from participating in a practice-based research network study of postpartum depression: a national research network (NRN) report. J Am Board Fam Med. 2010;23:455–64. https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2010.04.090246 .

Young C, Gunasekera H, Kong K, Purcell A, Muthayya S, Vincent F, et al. A case study of enhanced clinical care enabled by Aboriginal health research: the Hearing, EAr health and Language Services (HEALS) project. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2016;40:523–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12586 .

Rogers E. Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press; 2003.

Cohen WM, Levinthal DA. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm Sci Q. 1990;35(1):128–52.

Zahra SA, George G. Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension. Acad Manag Rev. 2002;27:185–203. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2002.6587995 .

Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:50. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-50 .

Roman PM, Abraham AJ, Rothrauff TC, Knudsen HK. A longitudinal study of organizational formation, innovation adoption, and dissemination activities within the national drug abuse treatment clinical trials network. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2010;38(Suppl 1):S44-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2009.12.008 .

Minasian LM, Carpenter WR, Weiner BJ, Anderson DE, McCaskill-Stevens W, Nelson S, et al. Translating research into evidence-based practice: the National Cancer Institute Community Clinical Oncology Program. Cancer. 2010;116:4440–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.25248 .

Fennell M, Warneke R. The diffusion of medical innovations: an applied network analysis: environment, development, and public policy and social services. Boston: Springer; 1988. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-5436-9 .

Book   Google Scholar  

Peckham S, Eida T, Hashem F, Kendall S. Research engagement and research capacity building: a priority for healthcare organisations in the UK. J Health Organ Manag. 2023;37(3):343–59. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHOM-12-2021-0436 .

Edelman A, Brown A, Pain T, Larkins S, Harvey G. Evaluating research investment and impact at a regional Australian hospital and health service: a programme theory and conceptual framework. Health Res Policy Sys. 2020;18:30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-0542-y .

Brown A, Edelman A, Pain T, Larkins S, Harvey G. “We’re not providing the best care if we are not on the cutting edge of research”: a research impact evaluation at a regional Australian hospital and health service. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022;11(12):3000–11. https://doi.org/10.34172/IJHPM.2022.6529 .

San Francisco declaration on research assessment. https://sfdora.org/ . Accessed 18 Apr 2024.

Ailawadhi S, Advani P, Yang D, Ghosh R, Swaika A, et al. Impact of access to NCI- and NCCN-designated cancer centers on outcomes for multiple myeloma patients: a SEER registry analysis. Cancer. 2016;122:618–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29771 .

Tsilimigras DI, Hyer JM, Diaz A, Moris D, Abbas A, Dillhoff M, et al. Impact of cancer center accreditation on outcomes of patients undergoing resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a SEER-Medicare analysis. Am J Surg. 2021;222(3):570–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2021.01.015 .

Grant J, Buxton MJ. Economic returns to medical research funding. BMJ Open. 2018;8: e022131. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022131 .

Schlick CJ, Yang AD. Is there value in cancer center accreditation? Am J Surg. 2023;220(1):27–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2020.05.001 .

Hussein M, Pavlova M, Ghalwash M, Groot W. The impact of hospital accreditation on the quality of healthcare: a systematic literature review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21:1057.

Yoong SL, Bolsewicz K, Reilly K, et al. Describing the evidence-base for research engagement by health care providers and health care organisations: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023;23:75. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-08887-2 .

Soper B, Yaqub O, Hinrichs S, Marjanovich S, Drabble S, Hanney S, et al. CLAHRCs in practice: combined knowledge transfer and exchange strategies, cultural change, and experimentation. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2013;18:53–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1355819613499903 .

Kislov R, Wilson PM, Knowles S, Boaden R. Learning from the emergence of NIHR Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs): a systematic review of evaluations. Implement Sci. 2018;13:111. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0805-y .

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Teresa Jones for her expert advice on the search strategy. The review was completed as partial fulfilment of Belinda Goodenough’s Masters dissertation at King’s College London. In the original full report for our first review [ 3 ], we gratefully acknowledged the valuable help we had received from our expert advisory group. The members included two patient representatives who were consulted at various stages throughout the project, especially around the necessity of having our systematic review focus on the complexities of benefits from research engagement by healthcare organizations and staff, while separate reviews and analyses focussed on the benefits of PPI in health research.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Health and Social Care Workforce Research Unit, King’s Policy Institute, King’s College London, Virginia Woolf Building, 20 Kingsway, London, United Kingdom

Annette Boaz

The Sax Institute, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Belinda Goodenough

Brunel University London, Uxbridge, United Kingdom

Stephen Hanney & Bryony Soper

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors were involved in planning the study. B.G. conducted the searches, with all authors involved in screening and analysis. B.G. produced an initial draft of the paper. The final version of the paper was produced collaboratively by all the authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Annette Boaz .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1., supplementary material 2., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, 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 you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. 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-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Boaz, A., Goodenough, B., Hanney, S. et al. If health organisations and staff engage in research, does healthcare improve? Strengthening the evidence base through systematic reviews. Health Res Policy Sys 22 , 113 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01187-7

Download citation

Received : 14 May 2024

Accepted : 22 July 2024

Published : 19 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01187-7

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

• Clinical trials
• Healthcare organizations
• Patient outcomes
• Processes of care
• Research engagement
• Systematic review

Health Research Policy and Systems

ISSN: 1478-4505

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

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 COLUMN
• 09 August 2024

Why I’ve removed journal titles from the papers on my CV

• Adrian Barnett 0

Adrian Barnett is a researcher in health and medicine at the Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Omitting journal names in your CV could help to prioritize the quality of your science over the prestige of the publication. Credit: Nature

Can you name the journal in which microbiologist Alexander Fleming first reported on the antibacterial properties of penicillin? Or where engineer John O’Sullivan and his colleagues presented the image-sharpening techniques that led to Wi-Fi?

Most of you can easily name the benefits of these breakthroughs, but I expect only a few would know where they were published. Unfortunately, in modern scientific culture, there is too much focus on the journal — and not enough on the science itself. Researchers strive to publish in journals with high impact factors, which can lead to personal benefits such as job opportunities and funding.

But the obsession with where to publish is shaping what we publish. For example, ‘negative’ studies might not be written up — or if they are, they’re spun into a positive by highlighting favourable results or leaving out ‘messy’ findings, to ensure publication in a ‘prestigious’ journal.

Illuminating ‘the ugly side of science’: fresh incentives for reporting negative results

To shift this focus in my own practice, I have removed all the journal names from my CV . Anyone interested in my track record will now see only my papers’ titles, which better illustrate what I’ve achieved. If they want to read more, they can click on each paper title, which is hyperlinked to the published article.

I’m not alone in thinking of this. The idea for removing journal names was discussed at a June meeting in Canberra on designing an Australian Roadmap for Open Research . A newsletter published by the University of Edinburgh, UK, no longer includes journal titles when sharing researchers’ new publications, to help change the culture around research assessment. Celebrating the ‘what’ rather than the ‘where’ is a great idea. This simple change could be extended to many types of research assessment.

Quality over journal titles

It is disorienting at first to see a reference that does not contain a journal title, because this bucks a deeply ingrained practice. But journal names are too often used as a proxy for research excellence or quality. I want people reading my CV to consider what I wrote, not where it was published, which I know is sometimes attributable to luck as much as substance.

Of course, anyone who really wants to judge me by where I’ve published will simply be able to google my articles: I haven’t anonymized the journals everywhere. But removing the names in my CV discourages simplistic scans, such as counting papers in particular journals. It’s a nudge intervention: a reminder that work should be judged by its content first, journal second.

Because I’m a professor on a permanent contract, it’s easier for me to make this change. Some might think that it would be a huge mistake for an early-career researcher to do the same. But there is no stage in our scientific careers at which decisions about hiring and promotion should be based on the ‘where’ over the ‘what’. It would be easier for early-career scientists to make this change if it became normalized and championed by their senior colleagues.

A potential criticism of removing journal names is that there is nothing to stop unscrupulous academics from publishing shoddy papers in predatory journals to create a competitive-looking CV, which could put candidates with genuine papers at a disadvantage. Promotion and hiring committees need to be made aware of the growing problem of faked and poor-quality research and receive training on how to spot flawed science.

However, when a job gets 30 or more applicants, there can be a need for short-cuts to thin the field. I suggest that reading the titles of each applicant’s ten most recent papers would work better than any heuristic based on paper counts or journal names, for only a slight increase in workload.

Imagine a hiring or fellowship committee that receives plain or preprint versions of the every applicant’s five best papers. Committee members who previously relied on simplistic metrics would have to change their practice. Some might simply revert to Google, but others might welcome the challenge of judging the applicants’ works.

Judging researchers is much more difficult than counting impact factors or citations, because science is rarely simple. Simplistic promotion and hiring criteria ignore this wonderful complexity. Changing typical academic CV formats could bring some of it back.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02596-y

This is an article from the Nature Careers Community, a place for Nature readers to share their professional experiences and advice. Guest posts are encouraged .

Competing Interests

A.B. is a member of the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Research Quality Steering Committee, which provides national guidance on good research practice. A.B. is paid for his time to attend committee meetings. A.B. was on the organizing committee for the Policy Roundtable: An Australian Roadmap for Open Research meeting, which is mentioned in the article, and received paid accommodation to attend the meeting.

Related Articles

‘There’s a lot of privilege masquerading as merit’: why inclusion matters in academia

Career Q&A 19 AUG 24

Gender bias might be working at level of whole disciplines

Nature Index 19 AUG 24

How to win funding to talk about your science

Career Feature 15 AUG 24

These labs have prepared for a big earthquake — will it be enough?

News 18 AUG 24

Chatbots in science: What can ChatGPT do for you?

Career Column 14 AUG 24

Friends or foes? An academic job search risked damaging our friendship

The citation black market: schemes selling fake references alarm scientists

News 20 AUG 24

Cash for catching scientific errors

Technology Feature 19 AUG 24

Faculty Positions in the Center for Nonhuman Primate Research in the School of Life Sciences

SLS invites applications for multiple tenure-track/tenured faculty positions at all academic ranks.

Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

School of Life Sciences, Westlake University

Faculty Position, Center of Excellence in Neuro-Oncology Sciences (CENOS)

Memphis, Tennessee

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

Postdoctoral Fellow Position

Birmingham, Alabama (US)

University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB)

Postdoctoral Scholar - Pharmaceutical Sciences

The University of Tennessee Health Science Center (UTHSC)

Postdoctoral Scholar- Speech Language Pathologist

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

Disclaimer: Early release articles are not considered as final versions. Any changes will be reflected in the online version in the month the article is officially released.

Volume 30, Number 9—September 2024

Research Letter

Thelazia callipaeda eyeworms in american black bear, pennsylvania, usa, 2023.

Suggested citation for this article

We identified a Thelazia callipaeda eyeworm in an American black bear in Pennsylvania, USA, on the basis of its morphological features and molecular analysis. Our finding highlights emergence of a T. callipaeda worm sylvatic transmission cycle in the United States.

Thelaziosis is an emerging zoonotic disease caused by nematodes of the genus Thelazia (Spirurida, Thelazioidea). In the United States, 3 zoonotic species have been identified: Thelazia gulosa ( 1 ), T. californiensis ( 2 ), and most recently T. callipaeda ( 3 ). In Asia and Europe, T. callipaeda is considered the main agent of thelaziosis in humans, domestic animals, and wild animals ( 4 ). Over the past decade, the geographic distribution and prevalence of T. callipaeda infection has increased worldwide in scale and intensity ( 4 ). The first autochthonous case in the United States was reported in 2018 in a domestic dog ( Canis lupus familiaris ) from New York with a history of unilateral epiphora and blepharospasm. Since then, additional cases in domestic dogs and cats have been reported, predominately from the northeastern United States ( 3 , 5 ).

T. callipaeda eyeworms are found in the conjunctival sac and lacrimal duct of the definitive host. They are transmitted when a male zoophilic secretophagous Phortica variegata fly ingests first-stage larvae from the host’s lachrymal secretions. In the vector, the first-stage larvae develop to the infective third-stage larvae in the testes, migrate to the mouthparts, and are transferred to another host during subsequent feeding on lachrymal secretions ( 4 ).

The role of wildlife in the epidemiology and emergence of T. callipaeda eyeworms is not completely known. In Europe, cases of T. callipaeda eyeworm infection have been detected in a wide range of hosts, including wild carnivores, omnivores, and lagomorphs ( 6 , 7 ). Wild canids, particularly red foxes ( Vulpes vulpes ), seem to play a large role in maintaining the sylvatic cycle in thelaziosis-endemic areas of Europe ( 7 ). However, knowledge of the sylvatic transmission cycle of T. callipaeda eyeworms, along with their environmental and anthropogenic factors, remains limited. Considering the emergence of those zoonotic nematodes in non–thelaziosis-endemic areas and the need for more information about their ecology and epidemiology in the United States, we report a case of T. callipaeda eyeworm infection in an American black bear ( Ursus americanus ) and identify a new geographic location of transmission.

In November 2023, an adult, female American black bear was legally harvested in Coolbaugh Township, Monroe County, Pennsylvania. During processing of the bear for taxidermy preparation, multiple linear nematodes were observed behind the third eyelid. Nematodes were extracted and submitted for identification. Two additional harvested bears from Monroe and Pike Counties, Pennsylvania, were also reported to have similar ocular nematode infections, but specimens from those bears were not collected.

• Figure 1 . Morphologic features of adult female Thelazia callipaeda eyeworm isolated from an American black bear in Coolbaugh Township, Monroe County, Pennsylvania, USA, 2023. A) Anterior end showing the large, deep,...

We identified 9 female and 4 male adult nematodes from the bear as T. callipaeda on the basis of morphologic and morphometric features ( 8 ). The nematodes were characterized by the presence of a cup-shaped buccal capsule and cuticular transverse striations, as well as the location of the vulvar opening anterior to the esophageal-intestinal junction on the female worms ( Figure 1 ). Female nematodes were 1.16–1.46 cm long and 0.36–0.42 mm wide; male worms were 0.82–1.06 cm long and 0.31–0.42 mm wide. The number of transverse cuticular striations ranged from 160 to 400/mm in the cephalic, midbody, and caudal regions.

Figure 2 . Phylogenetic relationship of Thelazia callipaeda isolate from an American black bear in Coolbaugh Township, Monroe County, Pennsylvania, USA, 2023 (GenBank accession no. PP739308), and other species of ...

We extracted genomic DNA from a midbody fragment of a female adult worm and amplified, sequenced, and analyzed the partial cytochrome oxidase c subunit I ( cox 1) gene, as previously described ( 2 ). We generated a 623-bp cox 1 sequence (GenBank accession no. PP739308), which showed 99%–100% maximum identity with T . callipaeda sequences available in GenBank. Phylogenetic analysis was performed by using the maximum-likelihood method and confirmed the taxonomic identification of T . callipaeda . The isolate clustered with all previous isolates from domestic animals in North America and with some isolates from Europe ( Figure 2 ), indicating circulation of the newly introduced pathogen in wildlife habitats and transmission from domestic animals to wildlife.

The presence of adult T. callipaeda eyeworms in an American black bear suggests the establishment of a sylvatic transmission cycle in the United States and expansion of the number of definitive host species used by the zoonotic nematode. In the past decade, wild carnivores have been identified as primary definitive hosts associated with the sylvatic cycle in thelaziosis- endemic and non–thelaziosis-endemic areas of Europe and Asia ( 7 ). American black bears are the most widely distributed species of bear in North America, inhabiting diverse regions throughout Mexico, Canada, and the United States ( 9 ). Given the bears’ extensive geographic distribution and frequent and close interaction with humans and pets ( 10 ), thelaziosis in the black bear population raises concerns about the rapidly increasing incidence and geographic range of T. callipaeda eyeworms in the United States. Although further research into the extent to which black bears play a role in the maintenance of the sylvatic cycle and transmission of T. callipaeda eyeworms is needed, the presence of the zoonotic nematode in such a wide range of hosts implicates exposure and risk for transmission to threatened and endangered species and direct or indirect risk for transmission to humans and domestic animals.

Dr. Sobotyk is an assistant professor of clinical parasitology and director of the Clinical Parasitology Laboratory at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. Her research focuses on zoonotic helminth infections in domestic and wild animals and improvement and development of diagnostic techniques for detecting parasitic infections of veterinary and public health relevance.

Acknowledgment

We thank the Pennsylvania Game Commission and Dillon Gruver for their continued support. We also acknowledge Shawn Lamparter’s Wildlife Design for recognition and prompting submission of the specimens.

• Bradbury  RS , Breen  KV , Bonura  EM , Hoyt  JW , Bishop  HS . Case report: conjunctival infestation with Thelazia gulosa : a novel agent of human thelaziasis in the United States. Am J Trop Med Hyg . 2018 ; 98 : 1171 – 4 . DOI PubMed Google Scholar
• Sobotyk  C , Foster  T , Callahan  RT , McLean  NJ , Verocai  GG . Zoonotic Thelazia californiensis in dogs from New Mexico, USA, and a review of North American cases in animals and humans. Vet Parasitol Reg Stud Reports . 2021 ; 24 : 100553 . DOI PubMed Google Scholar
• Schwartz  AB , Lejeune  M , Verocai  GG , Young  R , Schwartz  PH . Autochthonous Thelazia callipaeda infection in dog, New York, USA, 2020. Emerg Infect Dis . 2021 ; 27 : 1923 – 6 . DOI PubMed Google Scholar
• Otranto  D , Mendoza-Roldan  JA , Dantas-Torres  F . Thelazia callipaeda. Trends Parasitol . 2021 ; 37 : 263 – 4 . DOI PubMed Google Scholar
• Manoj  RRS , White  H , Young  R , Brown  CE , Wilcox  R , Otranto  D , et al. Emergence of thelaziosis caused by Thelazia callipaeda in dogs and cats, United States. Emerg Infect Dis . 2024 ; 30 : 591 – 4 . DOI PubMed Google Scholar
• Papadopoulos  E , Komnenou  A , Karamanlidis  AA , Bezerra-Santos  MA , Otranto  D . Zoonotic Thelazia callipaeda eyeworm in brown bears ( Ursus arctos ): A new host record in Europe. Transbound Emerg Dis . 2022 ; 69 : 235 – 9 . DOI PubMed Google Scholar
• Otranto  D , Dantas-Torres  F , Mallia  E , DiGeronimo  PM , Brianti  E , Testini  G , et al. Thelazia callipaeda (Spirurida, Thelaziidae) in wild animals: report of new host species and ecological implications. Vet Parasitol . 2009 ; 166 : 262 – 7 . DOI PubMed Google Scholar
• Otranto  D , Lia  RP , Traversa  D , Giannetto  S . Thelazia callipaeda (Spirurida, Thelaziidae) of carnivores and humans: morphological study by light and scanning electron microscopy. Parassitologia . 2003 ; 45 : 125 – 33 . PubMed Google Scholar
• Garshelis  DL , Scheick  BK , Doan-Crider  DL , Beecham  JJ , Obbard  ME . The American black Bear ( Ursus americanus ). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Washington (DC): International Union for Conservation of Nature. 2016 :e.T41687A114251609.
• Di Salvo  AR , Chomel  BB . Zoonoses and potential zoonoses of bears. Zoonoses Public Health . 2020 ; 67 : 3 – 13 . DOI PubMed Google Scholar
• Figure 2 . Phylogenetic relationship of Thelazia callipaeda isolate from an American black bear in Coolbaugh Township, Monroe County, Pennsylvania, USA, 2023 (GenBank accession no. PP739308), and other species of Thelazia available...

Suggested citation for this article : Sobotyk C, Dietrich J, Verocai GG, Maxwell L, Niedringhaus K. Thelazia callipaeda eyeworms in American black bear, Pennsylvania, USA, 2023. Emerg Infect Dis. 2024 Sep [date cited]. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid3009.240679

DOI: 10.3201/eid3009.240679

Original Publication Date: August 14, 2024

Table of Contents – Volume 30, Number 9—September 2024

Please use the form below to submit correspondence to the authors or contact them at the following address:

Caroline. Sobotyk, University of Pennsylvania, School of Veterinary Medicine, Matthew J. Ryan Veterinary Hospital, Rm 4034, 3900 Delancey St, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6051, USA

Comment submitted successfully, thank you for your feedback.

There was an unexpected error. Message not sent.

Metric Details

Article views: 491.

Data is collected weekly and does not include downloads and attachments. View data is from .

What is the Altmetric Attention Score?

The Altmetric Attention Score for a research output provides an indicator of the amount of attention that it has received. The score is derived from an automated algorithm, and represents a weighted count of the amount of attention Altmetric picked up for a research output.

Microinsurance research: status quo and future research directions

• Published: 19 August 2024
• Volume 49 , pages 417–420, ( 2024 )

Cite this article

• Martin Eling 1 &

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Eighteen years have passed since Muhammad Yunus was honoured with the Nobel Prize, sparking significant interest in the microfinance and microinsurance sectors. Presently, the economic and social significance of microinsurance, along with its challenges, are acknowledged every day in news outlets and political debates. Over the past decade, the microinsurance sector has seen remarkable growth, particularly in Asian countries, with significant emphasis on serving the low-income population facing life, health and agricultural risks. This expansion is complemented by the development of inclusive insurance programmes, which extend coverage to encompass the burgeoning middle class. These initiatives, ranging from rural schemes to more organised, national programmes with government assistance, play a crucial role in providing vital financial protection to diverse segments of society.

Even as microinsurance gains in importance for both business and society, research in this area is still scarce. Despite some publications, there remains a critical gap in understanding its theoretical benefits, drawbacks, practical effectiveness and the extent of regulation it requires. With this special issue, The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance—Issues and Practice continues its tradition of publishing special issues on emerging insurance topics. The journal has a history of dedicating issues to microinsurance (volume 39 (2) in 2014, volume 41 (2) in 2016, volume 44 (3) in 2019 and volume 46 (3) in 2021). As illustrated in Fig.  1 , research on microinsurance has surged over the past two decades, and it is now established as a distinct research domain. The first 10 years saw research output increase by tenfold, from around 100 to over 1000 publications annually. Subsequently, the field has stabilised, with approximately 1500 publications each year. Web of Science peaks in microinsurance publications in 2016 and 2019 coincide with the years this journal released special issues on the subject, highlighting the significant impact these editions have had on scholarly research in the field.

Hits by year for search term microinsurance (as of 4 March 2024)

The journal has published several well-cited articles on the challenges for commercial insurers providing coverage for the low-income market (Churchill 2007 ), the determinants of microinsurance demand (Eling et al. 2014 ) and the barriers to microinsurance adoption (Cole 2015 ). Yet, most articles dealt with narrower (often unique) settings, emphasising the complexity of the topic. Research on microinsurance demonstrates the fundamental problems and need for basic solutions (e.g. obtaining data, data quality, asymmetric information, potential correlations, ‘public good’ character of products, group vs. individual choice, short-term vs. long-term welfare gains, (unexpected) impact of regulation, return on investment, crowd out by public programmes). These special issues of The Geneva Papers therefore serve the industry well by informing on current thinking in the microinsurance space.

This year’s special issue on microinsurance includes three articles selected from nine submissions. The authors have used a range of methodologies from empirical analysis based on surveys to aggregated data. One article also includes a conceptual framework based on Outreville’s insurance demand framework. Two of the three articles deal with the African environment in Ghana, and the other with Turkey. As for the risk categories, one article discusses microinsurance in general (life and non-life), one paper focus on life/health and the other on agricultural risks. We also note that two of the three articles analyse the demand side, and one considers more supply-side frictions.

The first paper, Microinsurance in Ghana: Investigating the impact of Outreville's four-factor framework and firm and product characteristics on adoption , delves into the determinants of microinsurance adoption in Ghana, analysing data from households across six market centres and three regions, alongside data from 14 microinsurance firms and 47 products between 2017 and 2021. The study employs robust probit fixed effects and panel-corrected standard error models, highlighting that income levels, trust in financial institutions, participation in community risk management groups and the national health insurance scheme significantly affect microinsurance adoption. It also notes the influence of firm- and product-specific factors, such as affordability, claims risk, premiums and benefits, alongside the importance of structural, social and economic factors. This comprehensive analysis employs Outreville's four-factor insurance demand framework to categorise the critical factors influencing microinsurance uptake, offering valuable insights for policymakers and practitioners aiming to enhance microinsurance adoption in Ghana.

The second paper, Actuarial premium calculation for beekeeping insurance in Türkiye , explores the modelling of aggregate claims based on hive insurance policy data from 2014 to 2021. Using a collective risk model, the study conducts premium calculations for different geographical regions of Türkiye, identifying Eastern Anatolia as the region with the highest premiums and Central Anatolia the lowest. The research includes cluster analysis to categorise provinces based on claims ratios, revealing significant variations in premium rates. This detailed actuarial analysis aims to provide a foundation for fair and effective premium setting in Türkiye's beekeeping insurance sector, addressing the unique risks and challenges of the industry.

Finally, the third paper, The effect of microinsurance on the financial resilience of low-income households in Ghana: evidence from a propensity score matching analysis , examines how microinsurance enhances the financial resilience of low-income households in Ghana. The study utilises data from households across three regions and employs propensity score matching, tobit and probit instrumental variable techniques. It finds that microinsurance adoption significantly improves financial resilience by increasing income and reducing reliance on precautionary savings. This offers a critical safety net against economic shocks, advocating for the implementation of microinsurance programmes to support financial stability among Ghana’s poor.

One intention of this special issue is to stimulate future research on microinsurance in addition to publishing interesting articles. Indeed, the articles presented in this special issue open several avenues for future research. Firstly, understanding the mechanisms through which microinsurance can further enhance financial resilience in low-income communities, particularly by examining the role of digital technologies and mobile banking in increasing accessibility and reducing costs. This entails a deeper analysis of behavioural factors influencing microinsurance uptake and the impact of financial literacy programmes in the context of social networks. Secondly, there is promising scope for exploring the scalability of beekeeping insurance models to other agricultural sectors, potentially integrating climate risk assessment to develop more comprehensive insurance products. These areas not only offer the potential for significant academic contributions but also hold practical implications for policymakers and practitioners aiming to improve insurance penetration and financial inclusion in developing economies.

In considering this special issue, it is striking that all contributions are empirical and that there is no established theoretical framework to analyse microinsurance. Obviously, one might ask whether a separate theoretical framework for microinsurance is needed or whether microinsurance is just another type of insurance that should be analysed using classical models. The above discussion, however, illustrates the special nature and complex features of microinsurance (e.g. asymmetric information, potential correlations, ‘public good’ character) so that distinct papers that analyse microinsurance from a theoretical point of view might be useful, maybe also with reference to other comparable types of risk.

In addition, considering the growing scale of inclusive insurance, and the overlap of its target population with microinsurance, it is of interest to explore the possibility of partnering the two types of products in certain areas of practice, to learn from the experience of inclusive insurance and to combine forces in the field of financial inclusion.

We feel privileged to be able to benefit from the research of the contributing authors. We hope you will enjoy reading their articles as much as we have enjoyed editing this special issue of The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance—Issues and Practice .

Data availability

Not applicable.

Churchill, C. 2007. Insuring the low-income market: Challenges and solutions for commercial insurers. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance—Issues and Practice 32: 401–412.

Article   Google Scholar  

Cole, S. 2015. Overcoming barriers to microinsurance adoption: Evidence from the field. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance—Issues and Practice 40: 720–740.

Eling, M., S. Pradhan, and J.T. Schmit. 2014. The determinants of microinsurance demand. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance—Issues and Practice 39: 224–263.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute of Insurance Economics, University of St.Gallen, Tannenstrasse 19, 9000, St.Gallen, Switzerland

Martin Eling

School of Economics and Institute for Global Health and Development, Peking University, 5, Yiheyuan Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100871, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Eling .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Eling, M., Yao, Y. Microinsurance research: status quo and future research directions. Geneva Pap Risk Insur Issues Pract 49 , 417–420 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41288-024-00328-x

Download citation

Published : 19 August 2024

Issue Date : July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41288-024-00328-x

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

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

A scientist peer-reviewed an article that plagiarized his work. Then he saw it published elsewhere.

When Sam Payne reviewed a paper in March for Elsevier’s BioSystems , he didn’t expect to come across a figure he had created in his research. He quickly scrolled through the rest of the paper to find more figures, all copied from his work.

“It’s so blatant,” Payne, an associate professor of biology at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, posted on X . 

Although the journal rejected the paper at Payne’s recommendation, he worried the authors would try to publish elsewhere. 

“I had imagined they would just keep submitting it to new journals until it got accepted, because it was so brazenly plagiarized that they clearly didn’t care,” Payne told Retraction Watch.

Months later, Payne’s worry was justified. The paper , by researchers at First Moscow State Medical University, in Russia, appeared in Wiley’s Proteomics in May. 

While the figures are obviously copied from his work, Payne says the text of the article also has been lifted. 

“It seems like what happened is they just took sections of the manuscript and pushed it into an AI chatbot and said ‘summarize this for me,’ and then it came back with a reworded version,” Payne told us.

The corresponding author, Tatyana Degtyarevskaya, did not respond to our request for comment.

Payne’s posts on X about the whole experience received over 3 million views.  They spurred Wiley to “immediately” initiate an investigation in accordance with Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines, said a spokesperson for Wiley, who told us the publisher will retract the article.

“This calls for a much better peer review system. Like we have to do better. We have to check figures for plagiairism [sic] – as has been strongly advocated for by [Elisabeth Bik]. I know it will be hard. But this appears to be our reality,” Payne tweeted in the thread.

Payne said he is brainstorming ways journals could combat chatbot-aided plagiarism, when it’s not obvious the text is a direct match: “This will be happening a lot I think, unless [they] do some real serious effort to prevent it.”

Update, 8/16/24, 1800 UTC: The plagiarizing paper has now been retracted . Most of the authors say they had nothing to do with the paper:

The above article, published online on May 3, 2024 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com), has been retracted by agreement between the journal Editor-in-Chief, Lucie Kalvodova; and Wiley-VCH GmbH. The retraction has been agreed due to a major unattributed overlap between the figures and figure legends of this article (Figures 2–7) and another article previously published elsewhere by a different group of authors [1]. Such publishing practice is against the journal’s policy and Wiley’s Best Practice Guidelines on Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics. The co-authors, I. Popova, T. Degtyarevskaya, D. Babaskin, and A. Vokhmintsev, stated that they did not participate in the writing and submission of the article and gave no consent for publication. E. Savelyeva remained unresponsive.

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a  tax-deductible contribution to support our work , follow us  on Twitter , like us  on Facebook , add us to your  RSS reader , or subscribe to our  daily digest . If you find a retraction that’s  not in our database , you can  let us know here . For comments or feedback, email us at  [email protected] .

By clicking submit, you agree to share your email address with the site owner and Mailchimp to receive marketing, updates, and other emails from the site owner. Use the unsubscribe link in those emails to opt out at any time.

Share this:

16 thoughts on “a scientist peer-reviewed an article that plagiarized his work. then he saw it published elsewhere.”.

A centralized database of peer reviews would help diminish the success of those who resubmit junk to multiple journals.

“one man’s trash is another man’s treasure”

Very good. Now I do dislike the new Hindawi which has become extremely slow and inefficient in the last months, but it does have its advantages that might sometimes surprise many:

Hindawi is perhaps the only publisher that has such a central peer review system for years. If someone gets a rejection from a Hindawi journal, then changes the title and text and try to resubmit his paper to another Hindawi journal, Hindawi will identify his manuscript as “previously rejected” and request the authors to first reply to the comments of previous reviewers and fully revise their paper, before even sending the manuscript to the editor let alone new peer reviewers.

Now that Hindawi is merged in Wiley, I guess perhaps they might have integrated this good policy into all 1600+200 journals of Wiley. But I don’t know yet; perhaps, RetractionWatch can investigate this, if interested (or if not already out there on the Internet).

ps. I know it has many many disadvantages! So don’t start counting them.

how about a list of predatory journals, that might be a good idea too

“They spurred Wiley to “immediately” initiate an investigation in accordance with Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines, said a spokesperson for Wiley, who told us the publisher will retract the article.”

The paper is now showing as having been retracted.

A puzzling notice btw: “The co-authors, I. Popova, T. Degtyarevskaya, D. Babaskin, and A. Vokhmintsev, stated that they did not participate in the writing and submission of the article and gave no consent for publication.” At the same time, T. Degtyarevskaya was the corresponding author for this article. How can someone submit a manuscript if he does not agree with submission?

@Sybil, very easily: The fraudulent person can impersonate the corresponding author by creating a fake email address similar to the real one, and using it to submit the paper under the name of the corresponding author, without the corresponding author knowing about this. OR maybe the corresponding author is being dishonest here! ps. Nowadays, in many journals, the submitting author can differ from the corresponding author. Many journals allow someone else to submit the paper *on behalf* of the corresponding author. This includes all Wiley journals, all legacy Hindawi journals, and many other journals.

Unfortunately, as the reply from Kayfabe mentions (and assuming the authors are being honest), this is not an uncommon practice, especially (and understandably so) in disciplines where shared authorship is the rule. You will in fact find several examples on this website of people whose names have been used and abused in publications to which they did not, in fact, contribute. There are situations in which some unscrupulous authors actually desire to have their names included in papers in which they had no participation (plenty of examples of this can be found here too!), but for any reaearcher worth their salt the misuse of their name is a very concerning matter.

Some journals send the acknowledgement letter to the corresponding author only, so it is possible. Although, sometimes the authors who have perpetrated plagiarism, try to deny their role and put the blame on others. I think a full investigation on the authors’ previous works will be useful.

As I mentioned in a later comment, Tatyana’s work is all over the place in terms if subject matter – suspiciously so.

It is the time to black list those authors and institutions who have more than one retraction due to author misconduct. Enough with this tolerance and compliance

Not easy to sort. Computer based solutions to identify copied figures will be useful and needs to be free to use for peer reviewers.

Tatyana Degtyarevskaya’s on Research Gate is, while we’re at it, diverse. Quite diverse. Suspiciously diverse. While there is a chance that there might be more than one Tatyana Degtyarevskayas (hey, I’m pretty much “Jane Smith” equivalent in my language, so when you google my name, you’ll get translations, and articles ranging from dietetics, through linguistics and geology, to dentistry). Also, there is a chance someone specializing in, say, cell biology might be engaged with different strains of medical research. But proteomes, and forest vegetation, AND assessment of private tutors, *AND* digital literacy? C’mon!

Sorry about the errors – I was typing while walking, and a few sentences escaped me there.

It’s Sechenov Medical University, after all.

Perhaps we should have learned something from the case of Dmitry Bokov, but have we really? After all, even Bokov himself is back into publishing, after a short pause.

Why not compel all publishers to ‘filter’ all submissions prior to publication? For example, recent confirmation that the primary and all other authors are members/employees of an authentic educational/research entity? I’m sure there are some more verification that could also be applied.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .