how long is a research article

• Search Menu
• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• Supplements
• French Abstracts
• Portuguese Abstracts
• Spanish Abstracts
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• About International Journal for Quality in Health Care
• About the International Society for Quality in Health Care
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Contact ISQua
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Primacy of the research question, structure of the paper, writing a research article: advice to beginners.

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Thomas V. Perneger, Patricia M. Hudelson, Writing a research article: advice to beginners, International Journal for Quality in Health Care , Volume 16, Issue 3, June 2004, Pages 191–192, https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzh053

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Writing research papers does not come naturally to most of us. The typical research paper is a highly codified rhetorical form [ 1 , 2 ]. Knowledge of the rules—some explicit, others implied—goes a long way toward writing a paper that will get accepted in a peer-reviewed journal.

A good research paper addresses a specific research question. The research question—or study objective or main research hypothesis—is the central organizing principle of the paper. Whatever relates to the research question belongs in the paper; the rest doesn’t. This is perhaps obvious when the paper reports on a well planned research project. However, in applied domains such as quality improvement, some papers are written based on projects that were undertaken for operational reasons, and not with the primary aim of producing new knowledge. In such cases, authors should define the main research question a posteriori and design the paper around it.

Generally, only one main research question should be addressed in a paper (secondary but related questions are allowed). If a project allows you to explore several distinct research questions, write several papers. For instance, if you measured the impact of obtaining written consent on patient satisfaction at a specialized clinic using a newly developed questionnaire, you may want to write one paper on the questionnaire development and validation, and another on the impact of the intervention. The idea is not to split results into ‘least publishable units’, a practice that is rightly decried, but rather into ‘optimally publishable units’.

What is a good research question? The key attributes are: (i) specificity; (ii) originality or novelty; and (iii) general relevance to a broad scientific community. The research question should be precise and not merely identify a general area of inquiry. It can often (but not always) be expressed in terms of a possible association between X and Y in a population Z, for example ‘we examined whether providing patients about to be discharged from the hospital with written information about their medications would improve their compliance with the treatment 1 month later’. A study does not necessarily have to break completely new ground, but it should extend previous knowledge in a useful way, or alternatively refute existing knowledge. Finally, the question should be of interest to others who work in the same scientific area. The latter requirement is more challenging for those who work in applied science than for basic scientists. While it may safely be assumed that the human genome is the same worldwide, whether the results of a local quality improvement project have wider relevance requires careful consideration and argument.

Once the research question is clearly defined, writing the paper becomes considerably easier. The paper will ask the question, then answer it. The key to successful scientific writing is getting the structure of the paper right. The basic structure of a typical research paper is the sequence of Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion (sometimes abbreviated as IMRAD). Each section addresses a different objective. The authors state: (i) the problem they intend to address—in other terms, the research question—in the Introduction; (ii) what they did to answer the question in the Methods section; (iii) what they observed in the Results section; and (iv) what they think the results mean in the Discussion.

In turn, each basic section addresses several topics, and may be divided into subsections (Table 1 ). In the Introduction, the authors should explain the rationale and background to the study. What is the research question, and why is it important to ask it? While it is neither necessary nor desirable to provide a full-blown review of the literature as a prelude to the study, it is helpful to situate the study within some larger field of enquiry. The research question should always be spelled out, and not merely left for the reader to guess.

Typical structure of a research paper

The Methods section should provide the readers with sufficient detail about the study methods to be able to reproduce the study if so desired. Thus, this section should be specific, concrete, technical, and fairly detailed. The study setting, the sampling strategy used, instruments, data collection methods, and analysis strategies should be described. In the case of qualitative research studies, it is also useful to tell the reader which research tradition the study utilizes and to link the choice of methodological strategies with the research goals [ 3 ].

The Results section is typically fairly straightforward and factual. All results that relate to the research question should be given in detail, including simple counts and percentages. Resist the temptation to demonstrate analytic ability and the richness of the dataset by providing numerous tables of non-essential results.

The Discussion section allows the most freedom. This is why the Discussion is the most difficult to write, and is often the weakest part of a paper. Structured Discussion sections have been proposed by some journal editors [ 4 ]. While strict adherence to such rules may not be necessary, following a plan such as that proposed in Table 1 may help the novice writer stay on track.

References should be used wisely. Key assertions should be referenced, as well as the methods and instruments used. However, unless the paper is a comprehensive review of a topic, there is no need to be exhaustive. Also, references to unpublished work, to documents in the grey literature (technical reports), or to any source that the reader will have difficulty finding or understanding should be avoided.

Having the structure of the paper in place is a good start. However, there are many details that have to be attended to while writing. An obvious recommendation is to read, and follow, the instructions to authors published by the journal (typically found on the journal’s website). Another concerns non-native writers of English: do have a native speaker edit the manuscript. A paper usually goes through several drafts before it is submitted. When revising a paper, it is useful to keep an eye out for the most common mistakes (Table 2 ). If you avoid all those, your paper should be in good shape.

Common mistakes seen in manuscripts submitted to this journal

Huth EJ . How to Write and Publish Papers in the Medical Sciences , 2nd edition. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins, 1990 .

Browner WS . Publishing and Presenting Clinical Research . Baltimore, MD: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, 1999 .

Devers KJ , Frankel RM. Getting qualitative research published. Educ Health 2001 ; 14 : 109 –117.

Docherty M , Smith R. The case for structuring the discussion of scientific papers. Br Med J 1999 ; 318 : 1224 –1225.

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1464-3677
• Print ISSN 1353-4505
• Copyright © 2024 International Society for Quality in Health Care and Oxford University Press
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

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
• Prev Chronic Dis

Successful Scientific Writing and Publishing: A Step-by-Step Approach

John k. iskander.

1 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia

Sara Beth Wolicki

2 Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health, Washington, District of Columbia

Rebecca T. Leeb

Paul z. siegel.

Scientific writing and publication are essential to advancing knowledge and practice in public health, but prospective authors face substantial challenges. Authors can overcome barriers, such as lack of understanding about scientific writing and the publishing process, with training and resources. The objective of this article is to provide guidance and practical recommendations to help both inexperienced and experienced authors working in public health settings to more efficiently publish the results of their work in the peer-reviewed literature. We include an overview of basic scientific writing principles, a detailed description of the sections of an original research article, and practical recommendations for selecting a journal and responding to peer review comments. The overall approach and strategies presented are intended to contribute to individual career development while also increasing the external validity of published literature and promoting quality public health science.

Introduction

Publishing in the peer-reviewed literature is essential to advancing science and its translation to practice in public health ( 1 , 2 ). The public health workforce is diverse and practices in a variety of settings ( 3 ). For some public health professionals, writing and publishing the results of their work is a requirement. Others, such as program managers, policy makers, or health educators, may see publishing as being outside the scope of their responsibilities ( 4 ).

Disseminating new knowledge via writing and publishing is vital both to authors and to the field of public health ( 5 ). On an individual level, publishing is associated with professional development and career advancement ( 6 ). Publications share new research, results, and methods in a trusted format and advance scientific knowledge and practice ( 1 , 7 ). As more public health professionals are empowered to publish, the science and practice of public health will advance ( 1 ).

Unfortunately, prospective authors face barriers to publishing their work, including navigating the process of scientific writing and publishing, which can be time-consuming and cumbersome. Often, public health professionals lack both training opportunities and understanding of the process ( 8 ). To address these barriers and encourage public health professionals to publish their findings, the senior author (P.Z.S.) and others developed Successful Scientific Writing (SSW), a course about scientific writing and publishing. Over the past 30 years, this course has been taught to thousands of public health professionals, as well as hundreds of students at multiple graduate schools of public health. An unpublished longitudinal survey of course participants indicated that two-thirds agreed that SSW had helped them to publish a scientific manuscript or have a conference abstract accepted. The course content has been translated into this manuscript. The objective of this article is to provide prospective authors with the tools needed to write original research articles of high quality that have a good chance of being published.

Basic Recommendations for Scientific Writing

Prospective authors need to know and tailor their writing to the audience. When writing for scientific journals, 4 fundamental recommendations are: clearly stating the usefulness of the study, formulating a key message, limiting unnecessary words, and using strategic sentence structure.

To demonstrate usefulness, focus on how the study addresses a meaningful gap in current knowledge or understanding. What critical piece of information does the study provide that will help solve an important public health problem? For example, if a particular group of people is at higher risk for a specific condition, but the magnitude of that risk is unknown, a study to quantify the risk could be important for measuring the population’s burden of disease.

Scientific articles should have a clear and concise take-home message. Typically, this is expressed in 1 to 2 sentences that summarize the main point of the paper. This message can be used to focus the presentation of background information, results, and discussion of findings. As an early step in the drafting of an article, we recommend writing out the take-home message and sharing it with co-authors for their review and comment. Authors who know their key point are better able to keep their writing within the scope of the article and present information more succinctly. Once an initial draft of the manuscript is complete, the take-home message can be used to review the content and remove needless words, sentences, or paragraphs.

Concise writing improves the clarity of an article. Including additional words or clauses can divert from the main message and confuse the reader. Additionally, journal articles are typically limited by word count. The most important words and phrases to eliminate are those that do not add meaning, or are duplicative. Often, cutting adjectives or parenthetical statements results in a more concise paper that is also easier to read.

Sentence structure strongly influences the readability and comprehension of journal articles. Twenty to 25 words is a reasonable range for maximum sentence length. Limit the number of clauses per sentence, and place the most important or relevant clause at the end of the sentence ( 9 ). Consider the sentences:

• By using these tips and tricks, an author may write and publish an additional 2 articles a year.
• An author may write and publish an additional 2 articles a year by using these tips and tricks.

The focus of the first sentence is on the impact of using the tips and tricks, that is, 2 more articles published per year. In contrast, the second sentence focuses on the tips and tricks themselves.

Authors should use the active voice whenever possible. Consider the following example:

• Active voice: Authors who use the active voice write more clearly.
• Passive voice: Clarity of writing is promoted by the use of the active voice.

The active voice specifies who is doing the action described in the sentence. Using the active voice improves clarity and understanding, and generally uses fewer words. Scientific writing includes both active and passive voice, but authors should be intentional with their use of either one.

Sections of an Original Research Article

Original research articles make up most of the peer-reviewed literature ( 10 ), follow a standardized format, and are the focus of this article. The 4 main sections are the introduction, methods, results, and discussion, sometimes referred to by the initialism, IMRAD. These 4 sections are referred to as the body of an article. Two additional components of all peer-reviewed articles are the title and the abstract. Each section’s purpose and key components, along with specific recommendations for writing each section, are listed below.

Title. The purpose of a title is twofold: to provide an accurate and informative summary and to attract the target audience. Both prospective readers and database search engines use the title to screen articles for relevance ( 2 ). All titles should clearly state the topic being studied. The topic includes the who, what, when, and where of the study. Along with the topic, select 1 or 2 of the following items to include within the title: methods, results, conclusions, or named data set or study. The items chosen should emphasize what is new and useful about the study. Some sources recommend limiting the title to less than 150 characters ( 2 ). Articles with shorter titles are more frequently cited than articles with longer titles ( 11 ). Several title options are possible for the same study ( Figure ).

Two examples of title options for a single study.

Abstract . The abstract serves 2 key functions. Journals may screen articles for potential publication by using the abstract alone ( 12 ), and readers may use the abstract to decide whether to read further. Therefore, it is critical to produce an accurate and clear abstract that highlights the major purpose of the study, basic procedures, main findings, and principal conclusions ( 12 ). Most abstracts have a word limit and can be either structured following IMRAD, or unstructured. The abstract needs to stand alone from the article and tell the most important parts of the scientific story up front.

Introduction . The purpose of the introduction is to explain how the study sought to create knowledge that is new and useful. The introduction section may often require only 3 paragraphs. First, describe the scope, nature, or magnitude of the problem being addressed. Next, clearly articulate why better understanding this problem is useful, including what is currently known and the limitations of relevant previous studies. Finally, explain what the present study adds to the knowledge base. Explicitly state whether data were collected in a unique way or obtained from a previously unstudied data set or population. Presenting both the usefulness and novelty of the approach taken will prepare the reader for the remaining sections of the article.

Methods . The methods section provides the information necessary to allow others, given the same data, to recreate the analysis. It describes exactly how data relevant to the study purpose were collected, organized, and analyzed. The methods section describes the process of conducting the study — from how the sample was selected to which statistical methods were used to analyze the data. Authors should clearly name, define, and describe each study variable. Some journals allow detailed methods to be included in an appendix or supplementary document. If the analysis involves a commonly used public health data set, such as the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System ( 13 ), general aspects of the data set can be provided to readers by using references. Because what was done is typically more important than who did it, use of the passive voice is often appropriate when describing methods. For example, “The study was a group randomized, controlled trial. A coin was tossed to select an intervention group and a control group.”

Results . The results section describes the main outcomes of the study or analysis but does not interpret the findings or place them in the context of previous research. It is important that the results be logically organized. Suggested organization strategies include presenting results pertaining to the entire population first, and then subgroup analyses, or presenting results according to increasing complexity of analysis, starting with demographic results before proceeding to univariate and multivariate analyses. Authors wishing to draw special attention to novel or unexpected results can present them first.

One strategy for writing the results section is to start by first drafting the figures and tables. Figures, which typically show trends or relationships, and tables, which show specific data points, should each support a main outcome of the study. Identify the figures and tables that best describe the findings and relate to the study’s purpose, and then develop 1 to 2 sentences summarizing each one. Data not relevant to the study purpose may be excluded, summarized briefly in the text, or included in supplemental data sets. When finalizing figures, ensure that axes are labeled and that readers can understand figures without having to refer to accompanying text.

Discussion . In the discussion section, authors interpret the results of their study within the context of both the related literature and the specific scientific gap the study was intended to fill. The discussion does not introduce results that were not presented in the results section. One way authors can focus their discussion is to limit this section to 4 paragraphs: start by reinforcing the study’s take-home message(s), contextualize key results within the relevant literature, state the study limitations, and lastly, make recommendations for further research or policy and practice changes. Authors can support assertions made in the discussion with either their own findings or by referencing related research. By interpreting their own study results and comparing them to others in the literature, authors can emphasize findings that are unique, useful, and relevant. Present study limitations clearly and without apology. Finally, state the implications of the study and provide recommendations or next steps, for example, further research into remaining gaps or changes to practice or policy. Statements or recommendations regarding policy may use the passive voice, especially in instances where the action to be taken is more important than who will implement the action.

Beginning the Writing Process

The process of writing a scientific article occurs before, during, and after conducting the study or analyses. Conducting a literature review is crucial to confirm the existence of the evidence gap that the planned analysis seeks to fill. Because literature searches are often part of applying for research funding or developing a study protocol, the citations used in the grant application or study proposal can also be used in subsequent manuscripts. Full-text databases such as PubMed Central ( 14 ), NIH RePORT ( 15 ), and CDC Stacks ( 16 ) can be useful when performing literature reviews. Authors should familiarize themselves with databases that are accessible through their institution and any assistance that may be available from reference librarians or interlibrary loan systems. Using citation management software is one way to establish and maintain a working reference list. Authors should clearly understand the distinction between primary and secondary references, and ensure that they are knowledgeable about the content of any primary or secondary reference that they cite.

Review of the literature may continue while organizing the material and writing begins. One way to organize material is to create an outline for the paper. Another way is to begin drafting small sections of the article such as the introduction. Starting a preliminary draft forces authors to establish the scope of their analysis and clearly articulate what is new and novel about the study. Furthermore, using information from the study protocol or proposal allows authors to draft the methods and part of the results sections while the study is in progress. Planning potential data comparisons or drafting “table shells” will help to ensure that the study team has collected all the necessary data. Drafting these preliminary sections early during the writing process and seeking feedback from co-authors and colleagues may help authors avoid potential pitfalls, including misunderstandings about study objectives.

The next step is to conduct the study or analyses and use the resulting data to fill in the draft table shells. The initial results will most likely require secondary analyses, that is, exploring the data in ways in addition to those originally planned. Authors should ensure that they regularly update their methods section to describe all changes to data analysis.

After completing table shells, authors should summarize the key finding of each table or figure in a sentence or two. Presenting preliminary results at meetings, conferences, and internal seminars is an established way to solicit feedback. Authors should pay close attention to questions asked by the audience, treating them as an informal opportunity for peer review. On the basis of the questions and feedback received, authors can incorporate revisions and improvements into subsequent drafts of the manuscript.

The relevant literature should be revisited periodically while writing to ensure knowledge of the most recent publications about the manuscript topic. Authors should focus on content and key message during the process of writing the first draft and should not spend too much time on issues of grammar or style. Drafts, or portions of drafts, should be shared frequently with trusted colleagues. Their recommendations should be reviewed and incorporated when they will improve the manuscript’s overall clarity.

For most authors, revising drafts of the manuscript will be the most time-consuming task involved in writing a paper. By regularly checking in with coauthors and colleagues, authors can adopt a systematic approach to rewriting. When the author has completed a draft of the manuscript, he or she should revisit the key take-home message to ensure that it still matches the final data and analysis. At this point, final comments and approval of the manuscript by coauthors can be sought.

Authors should then seek to identify journals most likely to be interested in considering the study for publication. Initial questions to consider when selecting a journal include:

• Which audience is most interested in the paper’s message?
• Would clinicians, public health practitioners, policy makers, scientists, or a broader audience find this useful in their field or practice?
• Do colleagues have prior experience submitting a manuscript to this journal?
• Is the journal indexed and peer-reviewed?
• Is the journal subscription or open-access and are there any processing fees?
• How competitive is the journal?

Authors should seek to balance the desire to be published in a top-tier journal (eg, Journal of the American Medical Association, BMJ, or Lancet) against the statistical likelihood of rejection. Submitting the paper initially to a journal more focused on the paper’s target audience may result in a greater chance of acceptance, as well as more timely dissemination of findings that can be translated into practice. Most of the 50 to 75 manuscripts published each week by authors from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are published in specialty and subspecialty journals, rather than in top-tier journals ( 17 ).

The target journal’s website will include author guidelines, which will contain specific information about format requirements (eg, font, line spacing, section order, reference style and limit, table and figure formatting), authorship criteria, article types, and word limits for articles and abstracts.

We recommend returning to the previously drafted abstract and ensuring that it complies with the journal’s format and word limit. Authors should also verify that any changes made to the methods or results sections during the article’s drafting are reflected in the final version of the abstract. The abstract should not be written hurriedly just before submitting the manuscript; it is often apparent to editors and reviewers when this has happened. A cover letter to accompany the submission should be drafted; new and useful findings and the key message should be included.

Before submitting the manuscript and cover letter, authors should perform a final check to ensure that their paper complies with all journal requirements. Journals may elect to reject certain submissions on the basis of review of the abstract, or may send them to peer reviewers (typically 2 or 3) for consultation. Occasionally, on the basis of peer reviews, the journal will request only minor changes before accepting the paper for publication. Much more frequently, authors will receive a request to revise and resubmit their manuscript, taking into account peer review comments. Authors should recognize that while revise-and-resubmit requests may state that the manuscript is not acceptable in its current form, this does not constitute a rejection of the article. Authors have several options in responding to peer review comments:

• Performing additional analyses and updating the article appropriately
• Declining to perform additional analyses, but providing an explanation (eg, because the requested analysis goes beyond the scope of the article)
• Providing updated references
• Acknowledging reviewer comments that are simply comments without making changes

In addition to submitting a revised manuscript, authors should include a cover letter in which they list peer reviewer comments, along with the revisions they have made to the manuscript and their reply to the comment. The tone of such letters should be thankful and polite, but authors should make clear areas of disagreement with peer reviewers, and explain why they disagree. During the peer review process, authors should continue to consult with colleagues, especially ones who have more experience with the specific journal or with the peer review process.

There is no secret to successful scientific writing and publishing. By adopting a systematic approach and by regularly seeking feedback from trusted colleagues throughout the study, writing, and article submission process, authors can increase their likelihood of not only publishing original research articles of high quality but also becoming more scientifically productive overall.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge PCD ’s former Associate Editor, Richard A. Goodman, MD, MPH, who, while serving as Editor in Chief of CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Series, initiated a curriculum on scientific writing for training CDC’s Epidemic Intelligence Service Officers and other CDC public health professionals, and with whom the senior author of this article (P.Z.S.) collaborated in expanding training methods and contents, some of which are contained in this article. The authors acknowledge Juan Carlos Zevallos, MD, for his thoughtful critique and careful editing of previous Successful Scientific Writing materials. We also thank Shira Eisenberg for editorial assistance with the manuscript. This publication was supported by the Cooperative Agreement no. 1U360E000002 from CDC and the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health. The findings and conclusions of this article do not necessarily represent the official views of CDC or the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health. Names of journals and citation databases are provided for identification purposes only and do not constitute any endorsement by CDC.

The opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions.

Suggested citation for this article: Iskander JK, Wolicki SB, Leeb RT, Siegel PZ. Successful Scientific Writing and Publishing: A Step-by-Step Approach. Prev Chronic Dis 2018;15:180085. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd15.180085 .

When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.

• PLOS Biology
• PLOS Climate
• PLOS Complex Systems
• PLOS Computational Biology
• PLOS Digital Health
• PLOS Genetics
• PLOS Global Public Health
• PLOS Medicine
• PLOS Mental Health
• PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
• PLOS Pathogens
• PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
• PLOS Collections
• About This Blog
• Official PLOS Blog
• EveryONE Blog
• Speaking of Medicine
• PLOS Biologue
• Absolutely Maybe
• DNA Science
• PLOS ECR Community
• All Models Are Wrong
• About PLOS Blogs

A Brief Guide To Writing Your First Scientific Manuscript

I’ve had the privilege of writing a few manuscripts in my research career to date, and helping trainees write them. It’s hard work, but planning and organization helps. Here’s some thoughts on how to approach writing manuscripts based on original biomedical research.

Getting ready to write

Involve your principal investigator (PI) early and throughout the process. It’s our job to help you write!

Write down your hypothesis/research question. Everything else will be spun around this.

Gather your proposed figures and tables in a sequence that tells a story. This will form the basis of your Results section. Write bulleted captions for the figures/tables, including a title that explains the key finding for each figure/table, an explanation of experimental groups and associated symbols/labels, and details on biological and technical replicates and statements (such as “one of four representative experiments are shown.”)

Generate a bulleted outline of the major points for each section of the manuscript. This depends on the journal, but typically, and with minor variations: Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion. Use Endnote, Reference Manager, Mendeley, or other citation software to start inserting references to go with bullets. Decide from the beginning what word processing software you’ll use (Word, Google Docs, etc.). Google Docs can be helpful for maintaining a single version of the manuscript, but citation software often doesn’t play well with Google Docs (whereas most software options can automatically update citation changes in Word). Here’s what should go in each of these sections:

Introduction: What did you study, and why is it important? What is your hypothesis/research question?

Methods: What techniques did you use? Each technique should be its own bullet, with sub-bullets for key details. If you used animal or human subjects, include a bullet on ethics approval. Important methodologies and materials, i.e., blinding for subjective analyses, full names of cell lines/strains/reagents and your commercial/academic sources for them.

Results: What were your findings? Each major finding should be its own bullet, with sub-bullets going into more detail for each major finding. These bullets should refer to your figures.

Discussion: Summarize your findings in the context of prior work. Discuss possible interpretations. It is important to include a bullet describing the limitations of the presented work. Mention possible future directions.

Now read the entire outline (including the figures). Is it a complete story? If so, you’re ready to prepare for submission. If not, you should have a good idea of what it will take to finish the manuscript.

Writing your manuscript

You first need to decide where you want to submit your manuscript. I like to consider my ideal target audience. I also like to vary which journals I publish in, both to broaden the potential readers of my papers and to avoid the appearance of having an unfair “inside connection” to a given journal. Your academic reputation is priceless.

Once you’ve chosen your journal, look at the journal’s article types. Decide which article type you would like to submit and reformat your outline according to the journal’s standards (including citation style).

Convert your outline (including the figure captions) to complete sentences. Don’t focus on writing perfect prose for the first draft. Write your abstract after the first draft is completed. Make sure the manuscript conforms to the target journal’s word and figure limits.

Discuss all possible authors with your PI. If the study involved many people, create a table of possible authors showing their specific contributions to the manuscript. (This is helpful to do in any case as many journals now require this information.) Assigning authorship is sometimes complicated, but keep in mind that the Acknowledgements can be used to recognize those who made minor contributions (including reading the manuscript to provide feedback). “Equal contribution” authorship positions for the first and last authors is a newer option for a number of journals. An alternative is to generate the initial outline or first draft with the help of co-authors. This can take a lot more work and coordination, but may make sense for highly collaborative and large manuscripts.

Decide with your PI who will be corresponding author. Usually you or the PI.

Circulate the manuscript draft to all possible authors. Thank them for their prior and ongoing support. Inform your co-authors where you would like to send the manuscript and why. Give them a reasonable deadline to provide feedback (minimum of a few weeks). If you use Microsoft Word, ask your co-authors to use track changes.

Collate comments from your co-authors. The Combine Documents function in Word can be very helpful. Consider reconciling all comments and tracked changes before circulating another manuscript draft so that co-authors can read a “clean” copy. Repeat this process until you and your PI (and co-authors) are satisfied that the manuscript is ready for submission.

Some prefer to avoid listing authors on manuscript drafts until the final version is generated because the relative contributions of authors can shift during manuscript preparation.

Submit your manuscript

Write a cover letter for your manuscript. Put it on institutional letterhead, if you are permitted by the journal’s submission system. This makes the cover letter, and by extension, the manuscript, more professional. Some journals have required language for cover letters regarding simultaneous submissions to other journals. It’s common for journals to require that cover letters include a rationale explaining the impact and findings of the manuscript. If you need to do this, include key references and a citation list at the end of the cover letter.

Most journals will require you to provide keywords, and/or to choose subject areas related to the manuscript. Be prepared to do so.

Conflicts of interest should be declared in the manuscript, even if the journal does not explicitly request this. Ask your co-authors about any such potential conflicts.

Gather names and official designations of any grants that supported the work described in your manuscript. Ask your co-authors and your PI. This is very important for funding agencies such as the NIH, which scrutinize the productivity of their funded investigators and take this into account when reviewing future grants.

It’s common for journals to allow you to suggest an editor to handle your manuscript. Editors with expertise in your area are more likely to be able to identify and recruit reviewers who are also well-versed in the subject matter of your manuscript. Discuss this with your PI and co-authors.

Likewise, journals often allow authors to suggest reviewers. Some meta-literature indicates that manuscripts with suggested reviewers have an overall higher acceptance rate. It also behooves you to have expert reviewers that can evaluate your manuscript fairly, but also provide feedback that can improve your paper if revisions are recommended. Avoid suggesting reviewers at your own institution or who have recently written papers or been awarded grants with you. Savvy editors look for these types of relationships between reviewers and authors, and will nix a suggested reviewer with any potential conflict of interest. Discuss suggested reviewers with your PI and co-authors.

On the flip side, many journals will allow you to list opposed reviewers. If you believe that someone specific will provide a negatively biased review for non-scientific reasons, that is grounds for opposing them as your manuscript’s reviewer. In small fields, it may not be possible to exclude reviewers and still undergo expert peer review. Definitely a must-discuss with your PI and co-authors.

Generate a final version of the manuscript. Most journals use online submission systems that mandate uploading individual files for the manuscript, cover letter, etc. You may have to use pdf converting software (i.e., Adobe Acrobat) to change Word documents to pdf’s, or to combine documents into a single pdf. Review the final version, including the resolution and appearance of figures. Make sure that no edges of text or graphics near page margins are cut off (Adobe Acrobat sometimes does this with Microsoft Word). Send the final version to your PI and co-authors. Revise any errors. Then submit! Good luck!

Edited by Bill Sullivan, PhD, Indiana University School of Medicine.

Michael Hsieh is the Stirewalt Scientific Director of the Biomedical Research Institute and an Associate Professor at the George Washington University, where he studies host-pathogen interactions in the urinary tract. Michael has published over 90 peer-reviewed scientific papers. His work has been featured on PBS and in the New York Times.

Your article is wonderful. just read it. you advise very correctly. I am an experienced writer. I write articles on various scientific topics. and even I took some information for myself, who I have not used before. Your article will help many novice writers. I’m sure of it. You very well described all the points of your article. I completely agree with them. most difficult to determine the target audience. Thanks to your article, everyone who needs some kind of help can get it by reading your article. Thanks you

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Save my name and email for the next time I comment.

Written by Jessica Rech an undergraduate student at IUPUI and coauthored by Brandi Gilbert, director of LHSI. I am an undergraduate student…

As more learning occurs online and at home with the global pandemic, keeping students engaged in learning about science is a challenge…

By Brad Parks A few years back, while driving to my favorite daily writing haunt, the local radio station spit out one…

How Long Should a Research Paper Be?

How Long Should A Research Paper Be? An Overview

In short, research paper's average length can range from 1,500 words for research proposals and case studies - all the way to 100,000 words for large dissertations.

Research, by its nature of being complex, requires a careful and thorough elucidation of facts, notions, information, and the like - which is all reflected in its most optimal length.

Thus, one of the critical points that you need to focus on when writing either a complex research paper or a less complex research paper is your objective and how you can relay the latter in a particular context. Say you are writing a book review. Since you will only need to synthesize information from other sources to solidify your claim about a certain topic, you will perhaps use paraphrasing techniques, which offer a relatively lower word count when compared to a full-blown descriptive research paper.

Even when both types of research differ in word counts, they can effectively attain their objectives, given the different contexts in which they are written and constructed. 

Certainly, when asked about how long is a research paper, it surely depends on the objective or the type of research you will be using. Carrying out these objectives will warrant you to do certain paper writing tasks and techniques that are not necessarily long or short when you compare them to other research types. 

At Studyfy, we care for the attainment of your research objectives. We understand that achieving such will contribute to the success of your research completion. While maintaining the ideal word count for a research paper, you are in a meaningful position to understand the various elements that can enrich your paper, even if it looks overwhelming.

How Long Should the Introduction of a Research Paper Be?

The research introduction section most likely occupies approximately 30-40% of the entire research paper.

The introduction of a regular academic paper can total 1750-2000 words depending on the research type and complexity of the research niche or topic. That is why, in writing this section, you must enrich the content of your paper while maintaining readability and coherence for the benefit of your readers.

The introduction houses the background of the study. This is the part of the paper where the entire context of the paper is established. We all know that the research context is important as it helps the readers understand why the paper is even conducted in the first place. Thus, the impression of having a well-established context can only be found in the introduction. Now that we know the gravity of creating a good introduction, let us now ask how long this section should be.

Generally speaking, the paper’s introduction is the longest among all the sections. Aside from establishing the context, the introduction must house the historical underpinnings of the study (important for case studies and ethnographic research), salient information about all the variables in the study (including their relationship with other variables), and related literature and studies that can provide insight into the novelty and peculiarities of the current research project.

To better understand the general composition of your research introduction, you may refer to the breakdown of this section below:

• Context Establishment and Introduction of Key Terms. In this subsection, you will articulate the background (historical, social, economic, psychological, etc.) of the study, including the ecosystem and the niche of your study interest. Furthermore, key terms found as variables in your study must be properly defined operationally and theoretically, if necessary. This comprises 20% of the introduction, or about 350-500 words.
• Related Literature and Studies. This is the subsection where you will criticize and integrate existing literature and studies to highlight the research gap that you intend to fill in. This comprises 25% of the introduction or about 450-600 words.
• Thesis statement. This part of the introduction can only be a paragraph or a couple of sentences, as this needs to be straightforward in relaying the identified research gap of the researchers. This comprises 5% of the introduction or about 90-100 words.
• Objectives or Research Questions. This subsection should outline the aims of the study, especially highlighting the inquiries that concern the relationship between the variables and how the research will progress to fill in the identified gaps. This comprises 5% of the introduction or about 90-100 words.

Theoretical and/or Conceptual Framework. These frameworks, when better assisted with a visual representation, guide the entire research process and provide a structure for understanding the relationship between the variables in the study. This comprises 10% of the introduction or about 180-200 words.

Elements of Good Research Writing Process– While Maintaining the Ideal Word Count!

• Clarity of Purpose . All types of writing, whether long or short, have its clarity of purpose as the heart of the text. In research, it is manifested through the inclusion of a research question or hypothesis. A good research paper does not repeat these elements without a purpose in mind. Though they can be emphasized throughout the development of the paper, the manner of doing it must be in a logical and purposeful way. 

To guide you in writing process of doing so, you can ask yourself the following questions:

• Is the research question or hypothesis clearly stated?
• Does the introduction provide a clear overview of the purpose of the study?
• Does the purpose of the study repeat purposefully in the latter sections of the paper?
• Does the purpose of the study repeat logically in the latter sections of the paper?

2. Literature Review . When appending related literature and studies to your paper, the question must not revolve around whether you have supplied a lot of these pieces of information, making your article wordy and ideal. While the literature review adds a significant ‘chunk’ to your paper, with some paper formats even allotting a specific section for it, we must carefully consider what and how we can integrate them. It subsequently entails a critical analysis of a piece of literature or study and logically places it beside information that you desire to contest. As they say, a good literature review identifies knowledge gaps, highlights the author’s familiarity with the topic, and provides an overview of the research areas that show a disparity of agreement. In order to have these characteristics, you can ask yourself the following questions:

• Have I integrated relevant literature in my review?
• Have I placed it logically within a specific piece of information based on my presumption?
• Do they identify a concept or piece of information that is otherwise unknown to the field?
• Have I critically analyzed existing research to identify the research gap?

3. Logical Flow. Research will not be whole without its parts. Researchers must know how to tie everything together and ensure that each part is functional in itself and supplements with other parts. When dealing with a large body of text, the logical flow of the paper might be a considerable concern. Along with the confusion brought about by the wordiness and complexity of the topic, your readers might get lost because of incoherence and inconsistencies with the presentation of ideas, leading to them not reading your paper any further. Thus, while ensuring that you get the word count that you want, you might want to ask yourself these questions first:

• Does the introduction progress logically from the general background to the specific research question?
• Do the transition devices between sections and individual paragraphs of the body facilitate a smooth flow of ideas?
• Is there a clear hierarchy of ideas, with each paragraph contributing to the overall argument?
• Have I organized ideas in a way that makes the document easy to track?
• Have I pursued a logical sequence of presenting information?

4. Language Use and Style. Developing an academic language throughout your paper and maintaining a formal style of paper writing are all the more important in research writing process, and mind you, it can also help you increase your word count in a sustainable way! Incorporating this form of language and style into your paper entails more than just adding incoherent or overly manufactured words that may be viewed as fillers.

Strategies and known practices are said to hit multiple objectives without compromising the quality of the paper. You may expand your points by providing detailed explanations, introducing sufficient pieces of evidence that supports your claims, addressing counterargument through the presentation of related literature or studies, or clarifying complex concepts through chunking. To better understand these techniques, some of these questions might be helpful for you:

• Is the language clear and concise?
• Have I avoided unnecessary jargon or complex sentences or paragraphs?
• Have I avoided repetition or redundancy in the document?
• Have I expanded on key points by providing more detailed explanations and examples?
• Have I discussed nuances, variations, or exceptions to your results?
• Have I clarified some complex concepts or theories by chunking them into more detailed explanations?

How Long Should a Paragraph Be in a Research Paper?

For the research paper introduction section, a typical paragraph count will be 12-15, excluding the literature review section. Each subsection has 1-2 individual paragraphs. The mentioned section, on the other hand, can have paragraphs totaling 10-20. The conclusion section, on the other hand, is considered ideal if it has 5-7 paragraphs. 

The paragraph count differs from one research type to another and even from one paper section to another. While it is worth deciding how long should a paragraph be in a research paper, it is more important to take note of the importance of ideas that should be included in each paragraph within a certain section. Take the review of the literature section as an example. The number of literature in the paper is said to be equal to the number of paragraphs allotted for the section. The reason lies in the uniformity of importance these pieces of literature hold, provided that they are closely associated with the research gap. 

Do you feel like you need to pay for a research paper in hopes of finding a model article with the right paragraph count? Look no further, as Studyfy has its in-house research paper writing service that houses professionals and experts for your academic paper writing help. Its reasonable price– no deadline markup nor additional hidden charges– is tantamount to the expertise each writer has put into their work.

How Long Should a Conclusion Be in a Research Paper?

A concluding section, then, must only comprise 5% of the total word count of the paper, translating to approximately 400 words. This measly allocation may put you into a flimsy situation, especially if you do not know how to manage your vocabulary well and you keep on adding filler words that can sacrifice the importance of this section. Ditch the nonsense and construct your conclusion in a concise yet enriching way.

In concluding a research paper, it is important to always synthesize the big chunks of information examined in the data analysis and discussion. As worn out as the reader may look after reaching this point, the conclusion must act as a “mellow point” for them, entrusting them only with important pointers of the study. Sometimes, the conclusion part of the paper, even though less wordy than its preceding sections, may be difficult to construct, as you still need to have a basis– a scaffold– to refer to, and synthesizing, just like analyzing and evaluating data, is just as hard and laborious.

Through its superb essay writing services , plus applying top-notch quality assurance to academic papers like research articles, Studyfy can help you achieve the best for last with an effective, meaningful, and content-rich conclusion. Your readers will not think twice about using your study as a model for their own works!

How Long is a Research Paper in terms of its Various Types?

As mentioned in the first part of the article, the word count of an academic paper is dependent on the type of research you wish to conduct. While the general word count has been given, we cannot deny the fact that this threshold is only an estimation. There might be a time when you are tasked to create a research article that is different from a standard IMRAD-structured (Introduction, Methodology, Results, Analysis, Discussion) research paper. You are in for a treat, as we will provide you with a cheat sheet for the word count of several types of write-ups in the realm of research:

Research Proposal

Specific Purpose/s: A preliminary outline that contains the research question, minimal literature review, methodology, and significance of the research undertaking.

"Word Count Range: 1500-3000 words"

Review Article

Specific Purpose/s: Review bodies of literature about an overarching topic or niche, analyze a particular section, synthesize according to certain themes, and identify knowledge gaps from the findings.

"Word Count Range: 5000-10,000 words"

Meta-Analysis

Specific Purpose/s: Involves the use of statistical analyses of multiple studies to provide a quantitative synthesis of the evidence.

"Word Count Range: 5000-15,000 words"

Specific Purpose/s: Presents an in-depth and intrusive analysis of a specific case, one which aims to illustrate a broader concept or novel phenomenon.

"Word Count Range: 1500-5000 words"

Conference Paper

Specific Purpose/s: Presents a brief introduction, salient research findings, and implications connected to a given theme by a conference or colloquium.

"Word Count Range: 2000-5000 words"

Dissertation

Specific Purpose/s: Regarded as a terminal scholarly requirement for doctorate students, this is an in-depth discussion of an otherwise original research finding, often written in chapters. It contributes significantly to the body of knowledge of a particular study of interest.

"Word Count Range: 50,000-100,000 words (depending on the institution)"

Are you contemplating buying research papers of different types? Studyfy got your back! Its roster of writers and editing experts leaves no space for errors, ensuring that both quality and quantity– that’s right: content and word count are not compromised. The variety of expertise within ensures that all research and scholarly works are delivered to your liking. Pay less– no hidden charges and markups while you enjoy the best quality of writing with Studyfy.

Frequently Asked Questions

How long is the introduction in a research paper.

AThe introduction takes up about 30-40% of the entire paper since the context and research background should be specified and further discussed. For a general academic paper with 4000 words, the introduction must be approximately 1500 words. You can do the math for the rest!

How long is a research paper, considering that there are many of them?

There is no one-size-fits-all guideline in determining the word count of a plethora of research papers in the world. Although there is an accepted word count range for each research type (as presented in the previous section), there are several factors that should likewise be considered in determining the word count: specific guidelines set by the institution you are working with, the complexity of the topic, audience, and depth of analysis. 

Do I have to include all of the prescribed subsections of the introduction to increase the word count?

While the prescribed subsections have significant functions in the research paper introduction, some of them are not required to be included. The decisions depend on the type of research you wish to conduct and the external guidelines that you might need to follow. Some disciplines, such as social sciences, require a research article to have a theoretical framework, whereas others do not. Some research papers follow the standard IMRAD paper format that infuses the literature review section into the introduction, while the Germanic Thesis paper format, for example, regards the former as a separate section.

How do I increase my word count without compromising the quality of my research paper?

The dilemma of choosing quality over quantity has long been debunked: you do not have to choose in the first place. All you need is a set of writing strategies and techniques that will target those two birds using one stone. You may provide more detail to some ambiguous or novel terms. You can add additional works of literature to some concepts that promote abstraction. You may include examples or empirical pieces of evidence to create a more concrete representation of a concept or theory. Lastly, you may use subheadings to efficiently allocate word count for your chosen discussion topics.

Why is it important to track the word count of a research paper?

There are various reasons why we need to do it. Some institutions that publish scholarly journals follow certain guidelines in word count as one of the primary requirements. A specified limit enables researchers to allocate the number of words to several sections of their writing efficiently. Most institutions also use paper length as a predictor of publication cost. The longer the word count is, the costlier the publication will be. Lastly, reading engagement is affected by word count, as readers tend to shy away from reading an article that is long, boring, and insubstantial. 

Can a writing service help me achieve my goals of writing within the right word count range?

Certainly! Studyfy offers several academic services, including writing services and research papers for sale . Understanding your various writing needs, writers can cater to the needed style, word count, formatting, and any other aspects so that you can have the best quality write-up without having to fear extra charges and big markups.

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays). When we say “literature review” or refer to “the literature,” we are talking about the research ( scholarship ) in a given field. You will often see the terms “the research,” “the scholarship,” and “the literature” used mostly interchangeably.

Where, when, and why would I write a lit review?

There are a number of different situations where you might write a literature review, each with slightly different expectations; different disciplines, too, have field-specific expectations for what a literature review is and does. For instance, in the humanities, authors might include more overt argumentation and interpretation of source material in their literature reviews, whereas in the sciences, authors are more likely to report study designs and results in their literature reviews; these differences reflect these disciplines’ purposes and conventions in scholarship. You should always look at examples from your own discipline and talk to professors or mentors in your field to be sure you understand your discipline’s conventions, for literature reviews as well as for any other genre.

A literature review can be a part of a research paper or scholarly article, usually falling after the introduction and before the research methods sections. In these cases, the lit review just needs to cover scholarship that is important to the issue you are writing about; sometimes it will also cover key sources that informed your research methodology.

Lit reviews can also be standalone pieces, either as assignments in a class or as publications. In a class, a lit review may be assigned to help students familiarize themselves with a topic and with scholarship in their field, get an idea of the other researchers working on the topic they’re interested in, find gaps in existing research in order to propose new projects, and/or develop a theoretical framework and methodology for later research. As a publication, a lit review usually is meant to help make other scholars’ lives easier by collecting and summarizing, synthesizing, and analyzing existing research on a topic. This can be especially helpful for students or scholars getting into a new research area, or for directing an entire community of scholars toward questions that have not yet been answered.

What are the parts of a lit review?

Most lit reviews use a basic introduction-body-conclusion structure; if your lit review is part of a larger paper, the introduction and conclusion pieces may be just a few sentences while you focus most of your attention on the body. If your lit review is a standalone piece, the introduction and conclusion take up more space and give you a place to discuss your goals, research methods, and conclusions separately from where you discuss the literature itself.

Introduction:

• An introductory paragraph that explains what your working topic and thesis is
• A forecast of key topics or texts that will appear in the review
• Potentially, a description of how you found sources and how you analyzed them for inclusion and discussion in the review (more often found in published, standalone literature reviews than in lit review sections in an article or research paper)
• Summarize and synthesize: Give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: Don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically Evaluate: Mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: Use transition words and topic sentence to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.

Conclusion:

• Summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance
• Connect it back to your primary research question

How should I organize my lit review?

Lit reviews can take many different organizational patterns depending on what you are trying to accomplish with the review. Here are some examples:

• Chronological : The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time, which helps familiarize the audience with the topic (for instance if you are introducing something that is not commonly known in your field). If you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order. Try to analyze the patterns, turning points, and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred (as mentioned previously, this may not be appropriate in your discipline — check with a teacher or mentor if you’re unsure).
• Thematic : If you have found some recurring central themes that you will continue working with throughout your piece, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic. For example, if you are reviewing literature about women and religion, key themes can include the role of women in churches and the religious attitude towards women.
• Qualitative versus quantitative research
• Empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the research by sociological, historical, or cultural sources
• Theoretical : In many humanities articles, the literature review is the foundation for the theoretical framework. You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts. You can argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach or combine various theorical concepts to create a framework for your research.

What are some strategies or tips I can use while writing my lit review?

Any lit review is only as good as the research it discusses; make sure your sources are well-chosen and your research is thorough. Don’t be afraid to do more research if you discover a new thread as you’re writing. More info on the research process is available in our "Conducting Research" resources .

As you’re doing your research, create an annotated bibliography ( see our page on the this type of document ). Much of the information used in an annotated bibliography can be used also in a literature review, so you’ll be not only partially drafting your lit review as you research, but also developing your sense of the larger conversation going on among scholars, professionals, and any other stakeholders in your topic.

Usually you will need to synthesize research rather than just summarizing it. This means drawing connections between sources to create a picture of the scholarly conversation on a topic over time. Many student writers struggle to synthesize because they feel they don’t have anything to add to the scholars they are citing; here are some strategies to help you:

• It often helps to remember that the point of these kinds of syntheses is to show your readers how you understand your research, to help them read the rest of your paper.
• Writing teachers often say synthesis is like hosting a dinner party: imagine all your sources are together in a room, discussing your topic. What are they saying to each other?
• Look at the in-text citations in each paragraph. Are you citing just one source for each paragraph? This usually indicates summary only. When you have multiple sources cited in a paragraph, you are more likely to be synthesizing them (not always, but often
• Read more about synthesis here.

The most interesting literature reviews are often written as arguments (again, as mentioned at the beginning of the page, this is discipline-specific and doesn’t work for all situations). Often, the literature review is where you can establish your research as filling a particular gap or as relevant in a particular way. You have some chance to do this in your introduction in an article, but the literature review section gives a more extended opportunity to establish the conversation in the way you would like your readers to see it. You can choose the intellectual lineage you would like to be part of and whose definitions matter most to your thinking (mostly humanities-specific, but this goes for sciences as well). In addressing these points, you argue for your place in the conversation, which tends to make the lit review more compelling than a simple reporting of other sources.

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• Working with sources
• How to Write a Summary | Guide & Examples

How to Write a Summary | Guide & Examples

Published on November 23, 2020 by Shona McCombes . Revised on May 31, 2023.

Summarizing , or writing a summary, means giving a concise overview of a text’s main points in your own words. A summary is always much shorter than the original text.

There are five key steps that can help you to write a summary:

• Read the text
• Break it down into sections
• Identify the key points in each section
• Write the summary
• Check the summary against the article

Writing a summary does not involve critiquing or evaluating the source . You should simply provide an accurate account of the most important information and ideas (without copying any text from the original).

Table of contents

When to write a summary, step 1: read the text, step 2: break the text down into sections, step 3: identify the key points in each section, step 4: write the summary, step 5: check the summary against the article, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about summarizing.

There are many situations in which you might have to summarize an article or other source:

• As a stand-alone assignment to show you’ve understood the material
• To keep notes that will help you remember what you’ve read
• To give an overview of other researchers’ work in a literature review

When you’re writing an academic text like an essay , research paper , or dissertation , you’ll integrate sources in a variety of ways. You might use a brief quote to support your point, or paraphrase a few sentences or paragraphs.

But it’s often appropriate to summarize a whole article or chapter if it is especially relevant to your own research, or to provide an overview of a source before you analyze or critique it.

In any case, the goal of summarizing is to give your reader a clear understanding of the original source. Follow the five steps outlined below to write a good summary.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

You should read the article more than once to make sure you’ve thoroughly understood it. It’s often effective to read in three stages:

• Scan the article quickly to get a sense of its topic and overall shape.
• Read the article carefully, highlighting important points and taking notes as you read.
• Skim the article again to confirm you’ve understood the key points, and reread any particularly important or difficult passages.

There are some tricks you can use to identify the key points as you read:

• Start by reading the abstract . This already contains the author’s own summary of their work, and it tells you what to expect from the article.
• Pay attention to headings and subheadings . These should give you a good sense of what each part is about.
• Read the introduction and the conclusion together and compare them: What did the author set out to do, and what was the outcome?

To make the text more manageable and understand its sub-points, break it down into smaller sections.

If the text is a scientific paper that follows a standard empirical structure, it is probably already organized into clearly marked sections, usually including an introduction , methods , results , and discussion .

Other types of articles may not be explicitly divided into sections. But most articles and essays will be structured around a series of sub-points or themes.

Now it’s time go through each section and pick out its most important points. What does your reader need to know to understand the overall argument or conclusion of the article?

Keep in mind that a summary does not involve paraphrasing every single paragraph of the article. Your goal is to extract the essential points, leaving out anything that can be considered background information or supplementary detail.

In a scientific article, there are some easy questions you can ask to identify the key points in each part.

If the article takes a different form, you might have to think more carefully about what points are most important for the reader to understand its argument.

In that case, pay particular attention to the thesis statement —the central claim that the author wants us to accept, which usually appears in the introduction—and the topic sentences that signal the main idea of each paragraph.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing - try for free!

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Try for free

Now that you know the key points that the article aims to communicate, you need to put them in your own words.

To avoid plagiarism and show you’ve understood the article, it’s essential to properly paraphrase the author’s ideas. Do not copy and paste parts of the article, not even just a sentence or two.

The best way to do this is to put the article aside and write out your own understanding of the author’s key points.

Examples of article summaries

Let’s take a look at an example. Below, we summarize this article , which scientifically investigates the old saying “an apple a day keeps the doctor away.”

Davis et al. (2015) set out to empirically test the popular saying “an apple a day keeps the doctor away.” Apples are often used to represent a healthy lifestyle, and research has shown their nutritional properties could be beneficial for various aspects of health. The authors’ unique approach is to take the saying literally and ask: do people who eat apples use healthcare services less frequently? If there is indeed such a relationship, they suggest, promoting apple consumption could help reduce healthcare costs.

The study used publicly available cross-sectional data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Participants were categorized as either apple eaters or non-apple eaters based on their self-reported apple consumption in an average 24-hour period. They were also categorized as either avoiding or not avoiding the use of healthcare services in the past year. The data was statistically analyzed to test whether there was an association between apple consumption and several dependent variables: physician visits, hospital stays, use of mental health services, and use of prescription medication.

Although apple eaters were slightly more likely to have avoided physician visits, this relationship was not statistically significant after adjusting for various relevant factors. No association was found between apple consumption and hospital stays or mental health service use. However, apple eaters were found to be slightly more likely to have avoided using prescription medication. Based on these results, the authors conclude that an apple a day does not keep the doctor away, but it may keep the pharmacist away. They suggest that this finding could have implications for reducing healthcare costs, considering the high annual costs of prescription medication and the inexpensiveness of apples.

However, the authors also note several limitations of the study: most importantly, that apple eaters are likely to differ from non-apple eaters in ways that may have confounded the results (for example, apple eaters may be more likely to be health-conscious). To establish any causal relationship between apple consumption and avoidance of medication, they recommend experimental research.

An article summary like the above would be appropriate for a stand-alone summary assignment. However, you’ll often want to give an even more concise summary of an article.

For example, in a literature review or meta analysis you may want to briefly summarize this study as part of a wider discussion of various sources. In this case, we can boil our summary down even further to include only the most relevant information.

Using national survey data, Davis et al. (2015) tested the assertion that “an apple a day keeps the doctor away” and did not find statistically significant evidence to support this hypothesis. While people who consumed apples were slightly less likely to use prescription medications, the study was unable to demonstrate a causal relationship between these variables.

Citing the source you’re summarizing

When including a summary as part of a larger text, it’s essential to properly cite the source you’re summarizing. The exact format depends on your citation style , but it usually includes an in-text citation and a full reference at the end of your paper.

You can easily create your citations and references in APA or MLA using our free citation generators.

APA Citation Generator MLA Citation Generator

Finally, read through the article once more to ensure that:

• You’ve accurately represented the author’s work
• You haven’t missed any essential information
• The phrasing is not too similar to any sentences in the original.

If you’re summarizing many articles as part of your own work, it may be a good idea to use a plagiarism checker to double-check that your text is completely original and properly cited. Just be sure to use one that’s safe and reliable.

If you want to know more about ChatGPT, AI tools , citation , and plagiarism , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• ChatGPT vs human editor
• ChatGPT citations
• Is ChatGPT trustworthy?
• Using ChatGPT for your studies
• What is ChatGPT?
• Chicago style
• Paraphrasing

 Plagiarism

• Types of plagiarism
• Self-plagiarism
• Avoiding plagiarism
• Academic integrity
• Consequences of plagiarism
• Common knowledge

A summary is a short overview of the main points of an article or other source, written entirely in your own words. Want to make your life super easy? Try our free text summarizer today!

A summary is always much shorter than the original text. The length of a summary can range from just a few sentences to several paragraphs; it depends on the length of the article you’re summarizing, and on the purpose of the summary.

You might have to write a summary of a source:

• As a stand-alone assignment to prove you understand the material
• For your own use, to keep notes on your reading
• To provide an overview of other researchers’ work in a literature review
• In a paper , to summarize or introduce a relevant study

To avoid plagiarism when summarizing an article or other source, follow these two rules:

• Write the summary entirely in your own words by paraphrasing the author’s ideas.
• Cite the source with an in-text citation and a full reference so your reader can easily find the original text.

An abstract concisely explains all the key points of an academic text such as a thesis , dissertation or journal article. It should summarize the whole text, not just introduce it.

An abstract is a type of summary , but summaries are also written elsewhere in academic writing . For example, you might summarize a source in a paper , in a literature review , or as a standalone assignment.

All can be done within seconds with our free text summarizer .

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, May 31). How to Write a Summary | Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved April 16, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/working-with-sources/how-to-summarize/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to paraphrase | step-by-step guide & examples, how to quote | citing quotes in apa, mla & chicago, the basics of in-text citation | apa & mla examples, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

✔ Document error-free in 5minutes ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

• Affiliate Program

• UNITED STATES
• 台灣 (TAIWAN)
• TÜRKIYE (TURKEY)
• Academic Editing Services
• - Research Paper
• - Journal Manuscript
• - Dissertation
• - College & University Assignments
• Admissions Editing Services
• - Application Essay
• - Personal Statement
• - Recommendation Letter
• - Cover Letter
• - CV/Resume
• Business Editing Services
• - Business Documents
• - Report & Brochure
• - Website & Blog
• Writer Editing Services
• - Script & Screenplay
• Our Editors
• Client Reviews
• Editing & Proofreading Prices
• Wordvice Points
• Partner Discount
• Plagiarism Checker
• APA Citation Generator
• MLA Citation Generator
• Chicago Citation Generator
• Vancouver Citation Generator
• - APA Style
• - MLA Style
• - Chicago Style
• - Vancouver Style
• Writing & Editing Guide
• Academic Resources
• Admissions Resources

How to Write the Rationale of the Study in Research (Examples)

What is the Rationale of the Study?

The rationale of the study is the justification for taking on a given study. It explains the reason the study was conducted or should be conducted. This means the study rationale should explain to the reader or examiner why the study is/was necessary. It is also sometimes called the “purpose” or “justification” of a study. While this is not difficult to grasp in itself, you might wonder how the rationale of the study is different from your research question or from the statement of the problem of your study, and how it fits into the rest of your thesis or research paper. 

The rationale of the study links the background of the study to your specific research question and justifies the need for the latter on the basis of the former. In brief, you first provide and discuss existing data on the topic, and then you tell the reader, based on the background evidence you just presented, where you identified gaps or issues and why you think it is important to address those. The problem statement, lastly, is the formulation of the specific research question you choose to investigate, following logically from your rationale, and the approach you are planning to use to do that.

Table of Contents:

How to write a rationale for a research paper , how do you justify the need for a research study.

• Study Rationale Example: Where Does It Go In Your Paper?

The basis for writing a research rationale is preliminary data or a clear description of an observation. If you are doing basic/theoretical research, then a literature review will help you identify gaps in current knowledge. In applied/practical research, you base your rationale on an existing issue with a certain process (e.g., vaccine proof registration) or practice (e.g., patient treatment) that is well documented and needs to be addressed. By presenting the reader with earlier evidence or observations, you can (and have to) convince them that you are not just repeating what other people have already done or said and that your ideas are not coming out of thin air. 

Once you have explained where you are coming from, you should justify the need for doing additional research–this is essentially the rationale of your study. Finally, when you have convinced the reader of the purpose of your work, you can end your introduction section with the statement of the problem of your research that contains clear aims and objectives and also briefly describes (and justifies) your methodological approach. 

When is the Rationale for Research Written?

The author can present the study rationale both before and after the research is conducted. 

• Before conducting research : The study rationale is a central component of the research proposal . It represents the plan of your work, constructed before the study is actually executed.
• Once research has been conducted : After the study is completed, the rationale is presented in a research article or  PhD dissertation  to explain why you focused on this specific research question. When writing the study rationale for this purpose, the author should link the rationale of the research to the aims and outcomes of the study.

What to Include in the Study Rationale

Although every study rationale is different and discusses different specific elements of a study’s method or approach, there are some elements that should be included to write a good rationale. Make sure to touch on the following:

• A summary of conclusions from your review of the relevant literature
• What is currently unknown (gaps in knowledge)
• Inconclusive or contested results  from previous studies on the same or similar topic
• The necessity to improve or build on previous research, such as to improve methodology or utilize newer techniques and/or technologies

There are different types of limitations that you can use to justify the need for your study. In applied/practical research, the justification for investigating something is always that an existing process/practice has a problem or is not satisfactory. Let’s say, for example, that people in a certain country/city/community commonly complain about hospital care on weekends (not enough staff, not enough attention, no decisions being made), but you looked into it and realized that nobody ever investigated whether these perceived problems are actually based on objective shortages/non-availabilities of care or whether the lower numbers of patients who are treated during weekends are commensurate with the provided services.

In this case, “lack of data” is your justification for digging deeper into the problem. Or, if it is obvious that there is a shortage of staff and provided services on weekends, you could decide to investigate which of the usual procedures are skipped during weekends as a result and what the negative consequences are. 

In basic/theoretical research, lack of knowledge is of course a common and accepted justification for additional research—but make sure that it is not your only motivation. “Nobody has ever done this” is only a convincing reason for a study if you explain to the reader why you think we should know more about this specific phenomenon. If there is earlier research but you think it has limitations, then those can usually be classified into “methodological”, “contextual”, and “conceptual” limitations. To identify such limitations, you can ask specific questions and let those questions guide you when you explain to the reader why your study was necessary:

Methodological limitations

• Did earlier studies try but failed to measure/identify a specific phenomenon?
• Was earlier research based on incorrect conceptualizations of variables?
• Were earlier studies based on questionable operationalizations of key concepts?
• Did earlier studies use questionable or inappropriate research designs?

Contextual limitations

• Have recent changes in the studied problem made previous studies irrelevant?
• Are you studying a new/particular context that previous findings do not apply to?

Conceptual limitations

• Do previous findings only make sense within a specific framework or ideology?

Study Rationale Examples

Let’s look at an example from one of our earlier articles on the statement of the problem to clarify how your rationale fits into your introduction section. This is a very short introduction for a practical research study on the challenges of online learning. Your introduction might be much longer (especially the context/background section), and this example does not contain any sources (which you will have to provide for all claims you make and all earlier studies you cite)—but please pay attention to how the background presentation , rationale, and problem statement blend into each other in a logical way so that the reader can follow and has no reason to question your motivation or the foundation of your research.

Background presentation

Since the beginning of the Covid pandemic, most educational institutions around the world have transitioned to a fully online study model, at least during peak times of infections and social distancing measures. This transition has not been easy and even two years into the pandemic, problems with online teaching and studying persist (reference needed) . 

While the increasing gap between those with access to technology and equipment and those without access has been determined to be one of the main challenges (reference needed) , others claim that online learning offers more opportunities for many students by breaking down barriers of location and distance (reference needed) .  

Rationale of the study

Since teachers and students cannot wait for circumstances to go back to normal, the measures that schools and universities have implemented during the last two years, their advantages and disadvantages, and the impact of those measures on students’ progress, satisfaction, and well-being need to be understood so that improvements can be made and demographics that have been left behind can receive the support they need as soon as possible.

Statement of the problem

To identify what changes in the learning environment were considered the most challenging and how those changes relate to a variety of student outcome measures, we conducted surveys and interviews among teachers and students at ten institutions of higher education in four different major cities, two in the US (New York and Chicago), one in South Korea (Seoul), and one in the UK (London). Responses were analyzed with a focus on different student demographics and how they might have been affected differently by the current situation.

How long is a study rationale?

In a research article bound for journal publication, your rationale should not be longer than a few sentences (no longer than one brief paragraph). A  dissertation or thesis  usually allows for a longer description; depending on the length and nature of your document, this could be up to a couple of paragraphs in length. A completely novel or unconventional approach might warrant a longer and more detailed justification than an approach that slightly deviates from well-established methods and approaches.

Consider Using Professional Academic Editing Services

Now that you know how to write the rationale of the study for a research proposal or paper, you should make use of our free AI grammar checker , Wordvice AI, or receive professional academic proofreading services from Wordvice, including research paper editing services and manuscript editing services to polish your submitted research documents.

You can also find many more articles, for example on writing the other parts of your research paper , on choosing a title , or on making sure you understand and adhere to the author instructions before you submit to a journal, on the Wordvice academic resources pages.

•   [email protected]
• Shapiro Library
• SNHU Library Frequently Asked Questions

FAQ: How old should or can a source be for my research?

• 7 Academic Integrity & Plagiarism
• 64 Academic Support, Writing Help, & Presentation Help
• 27 Access/Remote Access
• 7 Accessibility
• 9 Building/Facilities
• 7 Career/Job Information
• 26 Catalog/Print Books
• 26 Circulation
• 129 Citing Sources
• 14 Copyright
• 311 Databases
• 24 Directions/Location
• 18 Faculty Resources/Needs
• 7 Hours/Contacts
• 2 Innovation Lab & Makerspace/3D Printing
• 25 Interlibrary Loan
• 43 IT/Computer/Printing Support
• 3 Library Instruction
• 37 Library Technology Help
• 6 Multimedia
• 17 Online Programs
• 19 Periodicals
• 25 Policies
• 8 RefWorks/Citation Managers
• 4 Research Guides (LibGuides)
• 216 Research Help
• 23 University Services

Last Updated: Jun 22, 2023 Views: 124722

How old your research sources can be, using the publication date or date of creation as the defining criteria, is either stated in your assignment rubric or depends on your field of study or academic discipline.  If it’s a requirement for your assignment, look for words like “sources must be published in the last 10 years” or words to that effect that specify the publication date or range required.  If the currency of sources is not a requirement of your assignment, think about the course involved and what an appropriate age might be.

How fast-changing is the field of study?

Sources for a history paper might, by their very nature, be older if they are diaries, personal letters, or other documents created long ago and used as primary sources.  Sources used for research in the sciences (health care, nursing, engineering), business and finance, and education and other social science fields require more “cutting edge” research, as these fields change quickly with the acquisition of new knowledge and the need to share it rapidly with practitioners in those fields.

A good rule of thumb is to use sources published in the past 10 years for research in the arts, humanities, literature, history, etc.

For faster-paced fields, sources published in the past 2-3 years is a good benchmark since these sources are more current and reflect the newest discoveries, theories, processes, or best practices.

Use the library’s Multi-Search search results page to limit your sources to those published within a date range you specify.  Use the Publication Date custom setting seen on the left side of the search results page:

For further assistance with this or other search techniques, contact the Shapiro Library email at [email protected]  or use our 24/7 chat service.

• Share on Facebook

Was this helpful? Yes 174 No 45

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) are a self-serve option for users to search and find answers to their questions. 

Use the search box above to type your question to search for an answer or browse existing FAQs by group, topic, etc.

Tell Me More

Link to Question Form

More assistance.

Submit a Question

Related FAQs

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

How Long Is Too Long in Contemporary Peer Review? Perspectives from Authors Publishing in Conservation Biology Journals

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Fish Ecology and Conservation Physiology Laboratory, Department of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Affiliation MISTRA EviEM, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden

Affiliations Rosenstiel School of Marline and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami, Miami, FL, United States of America, Beneath the Waves, Inc., Syracuse, NY, United States of America

Affiliation Rosenstiel School of Marline and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami, Miami, FL, United States of America

Affiliations Fish Ecology and Conservation Physiology Laboratory, Department of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Institute of Environmental Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

• Vivian M. Nguyen, 
• Neal R. Haddaway, 
• Lee F. G. Gutowsky, 
• Alexander D. M. Wilson, 
• Austin J. Gallagher, 
• Michael R. Donaldson, 
• Neil Hammerschlag, 
• Steven J. Cooke

• Published: August 12, 2015
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132557
• Reader Comments

29 Sep 2015: The PLOS ONE Staff (2015) Correction: How Long Is Too Long in Contemporary Peer Review? Perspectives from Authors Publishing in Conservation Biology Journals. PLOS ONE 10(9): e0139783. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139783 View correction

Delays in peer reviewed publication may have consequences for both assessment of scientific prowess in academia as well as communication of important information to the knowledge receptor community. We present an analysis on the perspectives of authors publishing in conservation biology journals regarding their opinions on the importance of speed in peer-review as well as how to improve review times. Authors were invited to take part in an online questionnaire, of which the data was subjected to both qualitative (open coding, categorizing) and quantitative analyses (generalized linear models). We received 637 responses to 6,547 e-mail invitations sent. Peer-review speed was generally perceived as slow, with authors experiencing a typical turnaround time of 14 weeks while their perceived optimal review time was six weeks. Male and younger respondents seem to have higher expectations of review speed than females and older respondents. The majority of participants attributed lengthy review times to reviewer and editor fatigue, while editor persistence and journal prestige were believed to speed up the review process. Negative consequences of lengthy review times were perceived to be greater for early career researchers and to have impact on author morale (e.g. motivation or frustration). Competition among colleagues was also of concern to respondents. Incentivizing peer-review was among the top suggested alterations to the system along with training graduate students in peer-review, increased editorial persistence, and changes to the norms of peer-review such as opening the peer-review process to the public. It is clear that authors surveyed in this study viewed the peer-review system as under stress and we encourage scientists and publishers to push the envelope for new peer-review models.

Citation: Nguyen VM, Haddaway NR, Gutowsky LFG, Wilson ADM, Gallagher AJ, Donaldson MR, et al. (2015) How Long Is Too Long in Contemporary Peer Review? Perspectives from Authors Publishing in Conservation Biology Journals. PLoS ONE 10(8): e0132557. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132557

Editor: Miguel A. Andrade-Navarro, Johannes-Gutenberg University of Mainz, GERMANY

Received: March 1, 2015; Accepted: June 16, 2015; Published: August 12, 2015

Copyright: © 2015 Nguyen et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited

Data Availability: Data are available in the paper and supporting information files.

Funding: This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, 315918-166, http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/index_eng.asp and the Canada Research Chair, 320517-166, http://www.chairs-chaires.gc.ca/home-accueil-eng.aspx . The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Peer reviewed publications remain the cornerstone of the scientific world [ 1 , 2 ] despite the fact that the review process is not infallible [ 3 , 4 ]. Such publications are an essential means of disseminating scientific information through credible and accessible channels. Moreover, academic institutions evaluate scientists based on the quantity and quality of their research via publication output. Given the importance of peer-review to the dissemination of information and to the researchers themselves, it is of little surprise that the process of scientific publishing has been a subject of discussion itself. For example, researchers have explored the many and various biases associated with contemporary peer-review (e.g., gender [ 5 ], nationality/language [ 6 ], and presence of a “known” name and academic age [ 7 ]), with a goal of improving the objectivity, fairness, and rigor of the review process [ 8 ]. What has received less attention is the duration of peer review. Given the significance of peer-reviewed publications for science and evidence-based conservation [ 9 ], efforts to improve the peer-review system are warranted to ensure that delays in publication do not have significant impacts on the transition of scientific evidence into policy.

Despite the switch from surface mail to online communication channels and article submission [ 10 , 11 ], review processes may still stretch into months or even years. Such extreme delays have consequences for both the assessment of scientific prowess (e.g., tenure, employment, promotion) in academics and also delay the communication of important information for threatened habitats or species. Presumably having rapid turnaround times is desirable for authors [ 12 ], particularly early career researchers [ 13 ], but also puts “stress” on the peer-review system. Although review time certainly is discussed informally, there is very little known about what authors themselves think about the speed of peer-review, and how it could be improved. For example, what is an acceptable timeline for a review? How long should authors wait before contacting editors about the progress of a review? What do authors perceive as trade-offs in quality versus speed of a review? What strategies can an author use to try to elicit a more rapid review process? What are the underlying factors that influence variation in review time? Do author demographics play a role in the perspective in the variation of review time? Finally, what does a “long” review mean to career development, scientific progress, and the future behavior of authors with respect to selecting potential publishing outlets? These questions might seem obvious or inherent given our publishing roles and requirements as active researchers, but they have yet to be addressed formally in the scientific literature.

Here, we present an analysis on perspectives about the speed and importance of review times among a subset of authors of papers within the realm of “conservation biology.” Conservation biology is a field with particular urgency for evidence to inform decisions [ 14 ], but has not received as much attention on its peer-review system as other urgent fields such as health and medical sciences [ 15 , 16 ]. We discuss the findings as they relate to peer-review duration and present author perspective on how to improve the speed of peer-review.

Data Collection and Sampling

We extracted the e-mail addresses of authors that published in the field of “conservation biology” from citation records within the Web of Science online database. A search was undertaken on 9 April, 2014 using Web of Science [consisting of Web of Science Core Collections, Biosis Previews (subscription up to 2008), MEDLINE, SciELo and Zoological Record]. We used the following search string, and limited the search to 2013 (to ensure all authors were still active): “conservation AND *diversity”. Search results were refined to include entries for the following Web of Science subject categories alone: environmental sciences ecology, biodiversity conservation, zoology, plant sciences, marine freshwater biology, agriculture, forestry, entomology, fisheries. A total of 6,142 results were obtained, where 4,606 individual e-mail addresses were extracted. E-mails were sent to this mailing list inviting authors to participate in an anonymous online questionnaire hosted on Fluid Surveys; however, of these e-mails, 312 addresses were inactive. Individuals with e-mails that bounced back indicating a change of e-mail were sent an invitation to the new e-mail address indicated. We sent an additional invitation on 22 May, 2014 using a mailing list produced from an additional extraction of 2,679 e-mail addresses obtained from another search using the above string and subject categories but restricted to 2012, with 426 addresses that were non-functional or no longer active. Reminders were sent to all e-mail addresses between 18–20 June, 2014, and closed access to the online questionnaire on 3 July, 2014.

Survey Instrument

The entire questionnaire was composed of 38 open- and closed-ended questions, of which a subset of the questions relevant to review times was used for this study. We asked respondents to focus their experiences in the last five years, given the major phase shift in review protocols in earlier years associated with the move to electronic-based communication [ 17 , 18 ]. However, we did anticipate observing different responses between those that were active in publishing in the pre-electronic era and those that have only published since electronic submission and review became standard practice. While it is not possible to decouple author age/career stage as a potential response driver in the questionnaire [ 13 ], we nonetheless explored the association between time since first peer-reviewed publication and author responses. The questionnaire began with questions that assessed the participants’ opinions on various “review metrics” (e.g., opinions of slow vs. rapid review durations, optimal review duration—see supporting information for full survey questions [ S1 File ]. This section was followed by questions associated with the respondent’s experience and expectations as an author, and their potential behaviour with respect to lengthy review times. Additionally, we assessed participants’ perspective on factors that ultimately influence review speed using open-ended questions and Likert type questions. We then asked whether the peer-review system should be altered and how it should be altered. Lastly, we recorded respondent characteristics such as socio-demographic information, publishing experience and frequency, as well as other experiences with the peer-review system (e.g. referee experience). It is important to note that there could be potential inaccuracies in perceptions of time and events due to self-reporting and recall bias, when someone may perceive a length of time to be quicker or slower than it is in reality. All but author characteristic questions in the survey were optional, and the number of responses (the sample size, n) therefore varies accordingly at or below the total number of respondents. The questionnaire was pre-tested with five authors, and protocols were approved by Carleton University Research Ethics Board (100958).

Data Analysis

For open-ended responses, we categorized the data by common themes that emerged among responses (i.e. open coding; [ 19 ]) using QSR NVivo 10. We use narrative-style quotes from the responses throughout the paper to illustrate the details and properties of each category or theme. We quantified certain responses using frequency counts of the coded themes to provide proportions of respondents that agree with an idea/theme or to provide a number of responses that corresponded with a theme. For the purpose of article clarity and conciseness, we report the majority of responses in percentage and chose to omit reporting the remainder of the responses when they are responses of no opinions or neutrality (e.g., when a respondent responds to a choice as “neither”).

Generalized linear models were used to identify how demographic information (e.g., gender), career status (e.g., number of publications), and experience regarding review times (# of weeks for either a “typical” (TYPICAL), “short” (SHORT), or “long” (LONG) review period) explained respondents’ expectations (i.e., opinion) for the length of time that constitutes an optimal (Model 1), short (Model 2) and long review time (Model 3). Response variables (modeled as # of weeks) were assumed to follow a Poisson or negative binomial distribution (i.e., when residuals were overdispersed) with normally distributed errors. The best model to explain respondent opinion was selected using backwards model selection [ 20 , 21 ]. Details on the statistical methods and the results are found in supporting information [ S2 File ].

Results and Discussion

Response rate and overall respondent characteristics.

We received 673 responses out of all the invited participants (N = 6,547), of which 461 completed the questionnaire to the end, with the possibility of skipping some questions (see S3 File for raw data). The remainder of participants partially completed the questionnaire, thus the number of responses varied by question. While we recognize that the response rate is low and the potential for sampling exists, we do not attempt to generalize the perspectives reported to the entire population of authors in field of conservation biology, but rather provide insights on the issue. It is also important to recognize that respondents who are more likely to participate in our questionnaire are also perhaps more likely to be those who are proactive in voicing their opinions. Of all the respondents, 28% were female and 63% were male (9% left it blank or preferred not to say). This may lead to a male-dominant perspective in our results. Most respondents ranged between 31–40 years old (38.2%), followed by 41–50 years (24%), 51–64 years (18%), 21–30 years (11%), less than 5% of respondents were 65 years or older, and <1% were under 21 years old (2 respondents).

Overall, responses came from 119 countries. We categorized countries based on economic income set out by the World Bank (2014). The majority of respondents (N = 640) worked in countries of high-income economies (78%), followed by upper-middle-income economies (17%), lower-middle-income (4%), and less than 2% for low-income economies. The top countries participating in this study included the United States (17%), the United Kingdom (10%), Australia (8%) and Brazil (7%). The majority of respondents (N = 611) were from academia (77% of which 15% were graduate students), governmental or state agencies (11%), non-government or non-profit organizations (10%), and the private sector (2%) which can include consulting and non-academic research institutes among others. The participant characterization suggests that the author perspectives in this article are largely biased towards industrialized nations and academia, which reflects the characteristics we would expect from the research community.

Author publishing and referee experiences

A larger proportion of participants published their first paper within the last decade (44% of 451 respondents published in 2000–2009, and 19% published in 2010 and after), which indicates a bias toward authors that are potentially in their mid-careers. About half of the respondents have published > 20 publications (with 21% of 623 respondents publishing >50), and only 10% have published <10. Half of the participants publish < 3 papers per year, 35% publish 4–6, 10% publish 7–10, and only 3% of participants publish >10 papers per year. Furthermore, nearly half of the respondents act as journal referees 1–5 times per year (48% of N = 450). Twenty percent of respondents are highly active referees (reviewing manuscripts >10 times per year), 25% being referees 6–10 times, and < 10% reviewing manuscripts only once a year. Overall, the majority of respondents have been publishing for at least 10 years and at least half of them are highly experienced with the peer-review process as both authors and referees. As such, the perspectives gathered in our questionnaire come from highly experienced authors that are actively publishing and therefore familiar with the peer-review system.

Peer review duration: experiences and expectations

We asked participating authors about their experience with peer-review durations (i.e. period between initial submission and first editorial decision following formal peer review), and 368 respondents gave useable/ complete answers. The average (mean ± SD) shortest or quickest review time was reported to be 5.1 ± 6.0 weeks ( Table 1 ), while the opinion of a “fast” review period was on average 4.4 ± 2.9 weeks. While the opinion of a “slow” review period was on average 14.4 ± 8.2 weeks, the longest or slowest review time was reported on average to be 31.5 ± 23.8 weeks ( Table 1 )—nearly double what the respondents perceive as slow. Furthermore, respondents reported that a “typical” turnaround time for a manuscript submission was on average 14.4 ± 6.0 weeks (ranging between 2–52 weeks), and that the optimal review period on average (median) is 6.4 ± 4 weeks. An optimal range for peer review durations were 1–20 weeks with majority falling within eight weeks or under (86% of 366 responses).

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132557.t001

The fact that respondent opinions and actual experiences of short or long review durations are not aligned, and that their experiences of review durations are lengthier (nearly double the “optimal” time), indicate that the overall perception of the peer-review system is slow. Results reported here may provide indicators for conservation biology related journals to gauge their performance on review time and improve author experiences and satisfaction. In a broad review (over 4000 respondents from across disciplines), Mulligan et al. [ 22 ] noted that 43% of respondents felt that the time it took to the first decision for their last article was slow or very slow. Mulligan et al. [ 22 ] asked authors about whether their last manuscript review (to first decision) took longer than 6 months and reported a mean of 31% but noted some differences among disciplines. For example, reviews in the physical sciences and chemistry rarely (15%) take longer than 6 months while those in the humanities, social science and economics were more likely to take longer than 6 months (i.e., 59%). Mulligan et al. [ 22 ] included a category called “agricultural and biological sciences” and reported 29% of respondents indicated reviews took longer than 6 months with 45% reporting 3 to 6 months. In general, these findings are consistent with the responses we obtained from a focused survey of scientists working in conservation biology.

Respondents did not perceive “fast” or “slow” reviews to influence review quality (75% of 547 useable responses), with the exception of 8% of respondents who believed that fast reviews have higher review quality and another 8% believed fast reviews have lower review quality (10% had no opinion). Therefore, faster review times should presumably be beneficial to the authors, the journals and the relevant field given the belief that review speed does not affect quality, although this has not been tested empirically. We discuss mechanisms to improve review times based on this information later in this article.

Who expects what in peer review duration?

A respondent’s opinion for an optimal review time depended on a weak two-way interaction between respondent experience and gender (TYPICAL*Gender, L- Ratio Test = 5.9, df = 1, P = 0.015). According to both male and female respondents, the optimal length of time for a review should always be shorter than what they have experienced as “typical” ( Fig 1 ). Opinion on what constitutes a short review period (Model 2) was dependent on several weak two-way interactions including: Age*Gender ( L- Ratio Test = 10.6, df = 3, P = 0.01), SHORT*Gender ( L- Ratio Test = 5.1, df = 1, P = 0.02), SHORT*Age ( L- Ratio Test = 11.5, df = 3, P = 0.01). For respondents over 41 years old, experience and opinion are more closely related than compared to younger respondents who suggest a short review is ≤ 10 weeks, regardless of experience ( Fig 1 ). Female experience and opinion were more closely matched than males, however this was evident for respondents 41–50 years old ( Fig 2 ). Finally, opinion on a long review period (Model 3) was dependent on LONG ( L- Ratio Test = 61.7, df = 1, P < 0.001) and Gender ( L- Ratio Test = 6.0, df = 1, P = 0.01). Here, respondents always expected “long” review periods to be many weeks less than what was experienced as a “long” review ( Fig 3 ). For example, although a female respondent experienced a long review of 60 weeks, she expects a long review to take just over 20 weeks [18.2, 22.3, 95% CI]. Based on researcher experience and generalizing for all ages, those who identify as male appear to be the least satisfied with the speed of the peer-review process.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132557.g001

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132557.g002

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132557.g003

Interactions with editors and journals

If a decision has not been made on a manuscript, participants (N = 479) waited on average 12.9 ± 7.5 weeks before making first contact with the editor or journal regarding the status of the manuscript “in review”. Of those who make first contact with an editor or journal, most will make additional attempts (77% of 479 responses) if time progresses without a response or decision. Of 479 completed responses, only 9% will never attempt to contact the editor or journal suggesting that the author population in this study is quite proactive in voicing their concerns, but keeping in mind that authors who are proactive are likely to agree to partake in the questionnaire. Nevertheless, this finding is important for editors who may feel confused as to the sort of delays in time before authors begin contacting them. Approximately 12% of participants (N = 469) believed that contacting the editor or journal would jeopardize the decision for acceptance, 6% thought it would benefit the decision, while majority did not believe there was any influence.

Only 14% of respondents (N = 480) have threatened to withdraw their manuscript from a journal, and 15% (of the 480 respondents) have actually withdrawn a submitted manuscript when the review process was unsatisfactorily long, which was indicated to be on average 30 ± 31 weeks (ranging from 2–100 weeks, N = 72) when such actions were deemed necessary. This review duration for a potential withdrawal of a manuscript is over double the average time that respondents perceive as slow, indicating that most authors had been quite patient with the peer review process. Despite their apparent patience, respondents generally believe that long reviews should be shorter than what they have experienced ( Fig 2 ), indicating an overall perception that peer-review durations are too slow within the realm of conservation biology.

The majority of participants (72% of 480 responses) did not believe that a long or a short review period would mean that the manuscript was likely to be accepted or rejected. Contrastingly, 14% of respondents believed that a “short” review period would likely lead to a rejection of the manuscript and only 6% believed it would likely be accepted, leaving 8% without opinion. In general, authors did not seem to believe there was any bias toward acceptance or rejection of their manuscript if they contacted the editor or whether the review period was quick or long.

Factors influencing review time and accountability

Of the completed responses (N = 471), over half of the respondents (56%) believed that the reviewers are accountable for the review duration, while 33% held the editors accountable, and 6% attributed delays to the journal staff. The remainder of respondents (5%) believed it was a combination of all the players. Likert type questions revealed that in general, reviewer fatigue (e.g., lack of time, etc.) was ranked as the most influential factor in slowing review speed, followed by editor fatigue, and somewhat the length of the manuscript as well as number of reviewers ( Table 2 ). One respondent expressed this reviewer fatigue as follows:

While editors try to find suitable reviewers in practice there is a relatively small pool of reviewers who can be relied on to do useful reviews . I am an associate editor on 5 journals and am convinced that there is substantial reviewer fatigue out there as the number of publications has grown annually as have the number of journals .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132557.t002

This may correspond with the increased number of publications and publication outlets that contemporary scientists have to contend with. Similarly, in 2007, it was reported that over 1000 new papers appear daily in the scientific and medical literature alone, and this number is likely increasing rapidly [ 12 ]. Kumar [ 23 ] listed five reasons for publication delay, which included reviewer availability and reviewers having other commitments pushing manuscript reviews at the bottom of their list. The other three reasons included editors sending the manuscript for multiple rounds of reviews (when reviews are conflicting or inadequate); the journal has outsourced manuscript management (e.g., Business Process Outsourcing agency), and; the reviewer intentionally delays the publication of a manuscript for various reasons (e.g., rivalry or intentions to plagiarize).

On the other hand, respondents perceived the persistence of the editorial team as a factor in somewhat speeding up the review process, as well as maximum allocated review times for each journal, and the journal prestige or impact factor ( Table 2 ):

I will always take the full amount of time they [editors] give me . Moreover , only once have I been asked to review a paper by an open access journal , which required my review submission in 2 weeks . But all the others were non-open access journals that gave me a month or more , which increased the average time to decision .

Consequences of long or short review durations

We questioned participating authors on their perspectives of consequences of long or short review durations. Our findings indicate a number of consequences that we have grouped into themes below.

Consequences for the journals.

After a long review period, most respondents (74% of 472 responses) said they are less likely to submit to that journal again relative to other journals; however, some (19%) said it would depend on the journal impact factor or prestige. As expected for the other end, if the review period was short, respondents (69% of N = 471) said they are more likely to submit to that journal again, with some respondents (17%) considering journal impact factor or prestige and 12% of participants were neither more or less likely to submit to that journal again. We also found that review duration is an important factor when respondents (N = 470) consider which journal to submit their research to (43% said yes and 46% said sometimes), while < 10% of participants said they never consider review duration when submitting a manuscript. Therefore, review time is an important consideration for journals to maintain reputation, as majority of respondents have given thought to review times when deciding what journal to submit to. Although, there are some indications of trade-offs between review duration and impact factor as approximately 1 of 5 respondents consider journal prestige and impact factor as an influential part of deciding to which journal they should submit.

In general, respondents (N = 465) discuss the speed of review with their colleagues, of which 54% (of 465) discuss it monthly, 30% once a year, 12% weekly, 1% daily and 4% never discuss review speed. Interestingly, there was an even split among all respondents (N = 466) with authors (49%) that have “blacklisted” a journal for its lengthy review times (i.e. chosen not to resubmit manuscripts to that journal in the future,) and those who have not (48%). These findings send multiple messages to journal editors: 1) review time is an important factor for authors in consideration of publication outlets, and 2) review time is actively being discussed by half of the respondents, which can hinder or endorse a particular journal’s reputation. Publication of research can ultimately affect society at large if the manuscript has significant scientific and policy implications. Therefore, editors/journals/publishers have a responsibility to disseminate credible scientific information in a timely manner and must play an active role through setting standards and facilitating the peer-review process [ 23 ].

Consequences on careers.

Just over half of the respondents (55% of 466 respondents) feel that a lengthy peer-review process affects their career, while 30% did not believe it did. Open-ended responses suggested that lengthier peer-review durations generally have negative impacts on “early career researchers” and “young scientists” (mentioned by 65 of 212 responses) because of the “publish or perish” system, which affects opportunities for jobs and career advancement. One respondent wrote:

As an early career researcher trying to build a list of publications , it is important to have papers reviewed quickly . The longer the time lag between a research project and accepted publication the more difficult it is to apply for new grants or job opportunities .

Furthermore, some respondents mentioned the delay in graduation or acceptance in graduate school for students due to lengthy peer-review processes:

I received the first response about my first article only after 54 weeks . At that time I was not able to start my PhD because the institution only accepted candidates with at least one accepted article .

Even after successful completion of my Ph . D . research topic , I was unable to submit my thesis because it’s a rule that at the day of Ph . D . thesis submission , must have a minimum one peer reviewed publication .

The comments of these early-career respondents are perhaps reflected in the predictions from Model 2, where despite the length of time they have experienced as a “short” review, respondents consistently expect review periods to be much shorter ( Fig 2 ). It seems that regardless of their experience, the review period cannot be short enough for early-career professionals who publish in conservation biology. In addition, it seems that irrespective of age, respondents believe a lengthy review period should be considerably shorter than what they have experienced ( Fig 3 ).

For respondents with tenure or later in their career, a slow review process can impact applications for grants/funding (approximately. 28% of responses) and promotions (approximately 19% of responses):

Publications are important for ranking of scientists and institution achievements so long reviews and long editorial process could violate this process .

Furthermore, concerns about competition among research groups (5% of responses), subjective treatment, malpractice of certain reviewers and editors, conflicts of interest, and the potential for being “scooped” (i.e., publishing the same idea/findings first) were voiced. Intentional delay of review was also listed as 1 of 5 reasons for peer-review delay by Kumar [ 23 ], emphasizing some merit to this topic. Although not the focus of this study, we found that the association between review time and the potential for being “scooped” is worrisome to a number of authors and should be acknowledged as this topic was brought up relatively frequently when respondents were given the opportunity to comment freely (open responses). For example:

If people play the game well and get their “friends” to review their papers . I am sure in many cases that speeds up the process more so when people cite their friends (the reviewers) in these papers .

If a person has an "in" with the journal . In other words , subjectivity and preferential treatment increase speed .

Several respondents (<8%) urged that if a manuscript is to be rejected, journals should do so in a timely manner so the researcher can resubmit to another journal sooner. Others voiced concerns that a delay of a manuscript could hinder subsequent work that is built on the manuscript in review, and some mentioned challenges in remembering specifics of the study or content of the manuscript when review times are particularly long.

Consequences to authors’ morale.

It was also revealed that lengthy peer reviews can affect motivation, causing conflict as well as frustration (8% of responses):

The frustration associated with a lengthy process discourages the writer . Incentives for conducting research are diminished when rewards are not forthcoming . Less incentive means less motivation which both translate into less productivity . Less productivity means less likelihood for promotions . This in turn sets up a vicious cycle very similar to the one related to applying unsuccessfully for grants .

A long peer review process reduces drastically your efficiency of publishing papers , because you need to go back to your previous work and you cannot focus on your current work . Sometimes you need to spend quite a bit of time figuring out how to answer reviewer’s concerns because it was too long ago that you submitted your manuscript .

It is very frustrating , and sometimes embarrassing , to have papers endlessly "in review” . " I had a paper where the subject editor sat on the paper for 5 months without sending it for review; after 3 contacts they finally sent it for review and it has been another month and we have not heard back . This was a key paper needed to build a grant proposal , and my collaborators consistently asked if it was published yet—the grant was ultimately submitted before the paper was accepted .

These consequences are not often discussed, but are often interlinked with consequences of a researcher’s career and aspirations. Although for the majority of the time, long review durations may not have dramatic consequences; however, lengthy review durations that occur at the wrong place at the wrong time may potentially lead to a cascade of consequences.

Alternative responses to consequences of review times.

A number of respondents (<10%) provided interesting alternative responses that are worth mentioning such as (but not limited to) consequences on research quality because of the race to publish, competition among colleagues, greater opportunity cost when taking the time to submit a “quality” manuscript, and limiting peer-review process only to academic research because researchers in other sectors are not rewarded with number of publications and productivity:

Research quality suffers—as opportunities to publish high quality research can be lost when other groups publish (often lower quality) research first . The focus then becomes speed and simplicity of research rather than quality .

Because of career pressure , especially for younger scientists , or the need to complete a degree program , choices are often made (I witness them here) to submit smaller , simpler studies to journals with a quick turnaround , or with a presumed higher acceptance rate for a particular work , rather than invest more time in extending analysis and/or facing rejection or extensive revisions

Should the review process be altered?

When asked if respondents thought the review process should be altered to change the review time, 61% (of 463) responded yes, 12% responded no, and the remainder had neutral opinions. Of 462 respondents, 43% believed that the review process should be improved while only 8% said no. When asked how the review process should be improved, 211 participants provided open-ended responses (summarized in Table 3 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132557.t003

Referee reward system.

About one quarter of the suggestions for improvement was to pay reviewers/editors or provide reviewer incentives/consequences or reward system such as: free year subscription to the journal; rewarding reviewers by adding value to their CV (e.g., “20 best reviews” or “20 best reviewers’ awards”); “have a 1 in 2 out policy… each paper you submit as a lead author means you have to review 2 for that journal before you can publish again in that journal”; providing discounts on the reviewer’s own submissions or items from the scientific publishing house (e.g., books, open access discount, etc.); and home institutions should have reward systems for researchers who regularly review papers.

Editors should remove slow reviewers from their lists . There should be a central bank where good reviewers receive benefits such as fast track review of their material if submitted to the same company (e . g . Wiley , Elsevier , etc . ) . A reduction in publication costs for good reviewers (not just time but quality of revision)

Engagement for reviewing should be better acknowledged as a performance indicator; some exemplary review processes should be made public so that authors and reviewers can learn from them . Reviewers should be able to see the other reviewer's comments after the editor's decision .

For instance , the journal Molecular Ecology is publishing the list of the best reviewers every years based on the quality and speed of the review . This is one example of a reward that the reviewers can put in their CV to show their importance in the field .

Our findings suggest there is some weighted call for reviewer incentives and reward systems. It is challenging to get accurate data on the cost of peer review, and in economic terms, the ‘opportunity cost’ to reviewers. The editor of BMJ , Richard Smith [ 24 ], estimated the average total cost of peer review per paper was approximately £100 for BMJ (keeping in mind 60% are rejected without external review), whereas the cost of papers that made it to review was closer to £1000 and without considering opportunity costs (i.e., time spent on editing and reviewing manuscripts that could be spent on other activities). A recent survey reported two-thirds of academics agreed that $100–200 would motivate them for reviewing while one-third refused to accept monetary compensation [ 25 ]. Kumar [ 23 ] reports differing results from two recent studies where one study of 1500 peer reviewers in the field of economics responded to both monetary and non-monetary incentives to expedite the return of reports [ 26 ], while in 2013, Squazzoni et al. [ 27 ] reported that financial incentives decreased the quality and efficiency of peer reviewers.

Reward system and incentives for reviewers have been proposed in the literature [ 28 ], where there may be penalties to those who decline reviews or non-monetary rewards for review completions such as published lists of reviewers as a means of acknowledgment (e.g. Journal of Ecosystems and Management). However, some journals already use this system and still there is no indication of change in referee behavior [ 29 ]. One common incentive given for peer-review is a temporary subscription to the journal in question. It is perhaps not surprising that such an incentive might fail to change reviewer behavior, since many reviewers will belong to institutions that already possess subscriptions to a host of journals

It may just be a matter of time for the “top reviewers” or time spent on reviews to become “prestigious” and valued in more tangible ways (whereas current system values number of publication). Peerage for Science is a novel approach to externalized peer-review, through which manuscripts are submitted for peer-review by members of a community of researchers in a transparent and non-blinded way, after which journals can then be contacted with an amended draft [ 30 ]. This system incentivizes peer-reviewers by providing metrics and ratings relating to their reviewing activities that members can use to demonstrate their activities.

Deadlines and defined policies.

Approximately one third of responses (N = 211) suggested stricter deadlines and policies, shorter allocated time to review a manuscript, and procedures to ensure adherence to strict deadlines should be established to improve review duration:

Current review process should follow the model of the PLOS (online journals) . Reviewers are constrained to address specific scientific elements : The question , the method , the results and the discussion that these are scientifically acceptable . This should encourage young researchers to publish without the need to include big names/ popular personalities in research to have the paper through journal review .

Again improvements in peer review turnaround and quality are something that the journal editors are able to control by setting out standards and policies that facilitate the peer review process. A recent review of time management for manuscript peer-review acknowledged several suggestions to improve the review process and time, but that it is the responsibility of editors, publishers and academic sponsors of the journals to implement these improvements [ 23 ].

Editorial persistence and journal management.

Related to these more stringent deadlines and policies is the suggestion that editors should put more pressure on reviewers, and follow up with deadlines (30 responses), while others suggested better journal management (13 responses):

Some Journals restart the time counting during a revision process , for example , asking to re-submit as a new manuscript in order to reduce the revision time , instead of keeping track of the time during the whole revision process and to be more realistic about the time that a revision takes . I believe that is a way of cheating or deceiving the system .

As illustrated by the quote above, many journals ask to re-submit as a “new submission” rather than a “resubmission”, and sends to new referees instead of the previous ones to review the revisions, which increases the length of peer review time. Fox and Petchey [ 29 ] suggested that if a manuscript is rejected from one journal, the reviews should be carried forward to the subsequent journal that the manuscript was submitted to. They argued this action helps with quality control and facilitates review process by ensuring that authors revise their manuscripts appropriately, and reduces any duplication of efforts by referees. At present, at least one ecology journal allows authors of manuscripts previously rejected to provide previous reviews and the publisher Wiley is trialing peer-review transfer across nine of its neuroscience journals [ 31 ]. A more formal system for sharing reviews is suggested to increase speed and quality of the peer review system, which is now feasible with the pervasive use of electronic submission and review systems [ 29 ].

Peer review training.

Including graduate students or early career researchers as reviewers may increase the “supply” for the increasing demand. Some may argue that graduate students lack experience and knowledge to appropriately assess a manuscript. Formal training has been suggested to improve quality of reviews and increase the network of reviewers. Furthermore, recommendations by senior researchers of names of reliable and qualified graduate students or early career researchers as potential reviewers may help with the deficit [ 32 ]. Indeed, the British Ecological Society recommends that academic supervisors should assign their own peer-review invitations to graduate students [ 33 ], although it is certainly sensible to verify that individual journal editors are happy with this practice.

Changes to the norms of peer-review system.

A number of respondents (12%) wanted to see more drastic changes in the norms of publishing. For example, permanent and paid group of reviewers, standardizing all journals, permitting to submit manuscripts to more than one journal, including more early career researchers as reviewers, following model journals that do it well (e.g., Geoscience, PLOS one), having a database of reviewers, or have sub-reviewers (e.g. expertise for statistics, methods, taxa, tools, etc.).

“PubCreds” currency, has been proposed as a system where reviewers “pay” for their submission using PubCreds they have earned by performing reviews [ 29 ]. Although, a radical idea, Fox and Petchey [ 29 ] state that “doing nothing will lead to a system in which external review becomes a thing of the past, decision-making by journals is correspondingly stochastic, and the most selfish among us are the most rewarded”. Furthermore, Smith [ 24 ] suggested adopting a “quick and light” form of peer review, with the aim of opening the peer-review system to the broader world to critique the paper or even rank it in the way that Amazon and other retailers ask users to rank their products. Alternatively, some journals (e.g. Biogeosciences) employ a two-stage peer-review, whereby articles are published in a discussions format that is open to public review prior to final publication of an amended version. Other journals (e.g. PLOSone) and platforms ( www.PubPeer.com ) offer the opportunity for continued review following publication. The argument for a radical change in the norms is not uncommon and may be required in today’s peer-review system which will soon be in crisis [ 29 ], although suggestions that increase the labour required of editors and referees, such as submitting to more than one journal concurrently, may exacerbate the already stressed peer-review system.

Role of open access and journal prestige on review duration

The majority of respondents do not review a manuscript quicker for higher tier journals (71% of 445 respondents). When respondents were asked about their perception on the justification of journal prestige on turnaround time, 50% of 369 responses do not believe publishing in a top-tier journal justifies a rapid or delayed review time, while 37% believe it does (remainder had no opinion). Of those who believed publishing in a top-tier journal justifies longer or shorter review time, 64% believe it explains rapid reviews, 14% believe it justifies a delayed review, and 20% believe it justifies both rapid and delay (<5% believe neither). On the other hand, it was interesting to note that a higher number of respondents (75% of 367) believe that publishing in a low-tier journal does not justify a rapid or delayed review time. Overall, journal prestige and impact factor seem to be an important indicator for many authors, although their ability to turnaround peer-review in a timelier manner may reflect their perceived prestige and the higher quality manuscripts that make it through primary editorial screening. One respondent noted:

There is likely a link between review duration and impact factors , as impact factors are based on citations during the first two years after publication . If those citing papers take longer to go through the review , they won't count towards the journal's impact factor .

We were interested in participants’ perspectives of the review process for open access (OA) journals, particularly because authors pay a fee to publish in such journals. About a third (32% of 461) agreed that OA journals should have higher quality of “customer service”, such as faster review and publication times, with an additional 13% of respondents who strongly agree. Another third (31%) of respondents were neutral about this statement, whereas 16% disagree and 7% strongly disagree. This finding is interesting because it provides insight on authors’ perspectives and expectations of OA journals, where authors have higher expectations from OA journals even though peer-review standards should be disconnected from cost and from who pays. This is most likely the result of a shift in the customer base. In subscription-based publishing the customer is the librarian and their measure of product quality was assessed primarily through metrics such as Impact Factor. In OA publishing, the customer becomes the submitting researcher, and quality is assessed through publishing service and, incorrectly perhaps, standards of editorial review. It has yet to be proven that publishers will see substantial increases in profits following a switch to OA, and if profit margins are not significantly increased then expectations of improved service are unwarranted.

Although the topic of open access journals was not the primary focus of our study, we believe that it is an increasing relevant topic as there are debates about the quality of OA journals, but on the other hand, open access may be viewed as mandatory, particularly where research is funded with public money. Future research including perspectives and understanding value of OA journals within the conservation science community should be considered.

Our findings show that the peer-review process within conservation biology is perceived by authors to be slow (14 weeks), and turnaround times that are over double the length of what they perceive as “optimal” (6 weeks). In particular, males seem to expect shorter review times than females, whereas female expectations were found to be more closely related to what they have actually experienced in typical review times. Similarly, older participants (> 40 years) have expectations of review times that are more closely aligned with their experience, while younger authors developed their opinion of a short review time to be <10 weeks despite their experiences. Overall, the primary reasons that participants attribute to the lengthy peer-review process is the “stress” on the peer review system, mainly reviewer and editor fatigue. Meanwhile, editor persistence and journal prestige/impact factor were believed to speed up the review process. The institutional incentive for productivity has its fallacies. The demand from increased publications strains the peer-review system and the “publish or perish” environment can also potentially create a strong demand for publications outlets and increased expectations for quick turnaround times.

It appears that early career researchers are more vulnerable to slow peer review durations in a “publish or perish” system as it relates to graduation employment opportunities and other career advancements. Closely related to impacts on careers are consequences of lengthy peer review duration on an author’s “morale” (i.e. motivation, frustration, conflicts, embarrassment). Some respondents commented that lengthy review durations may result in lack of motivation, forgotten details about the manuscript thus leading to reduced efficiency in productivity and potentially a lower quality manuscript. Competition among colleagues was thought by few respondents to encourage publication of shorter and simpler studies in order to gain a quicker turnaround review time, rather than investing more time in complex and extensive analyses or revisions. These concerns have merit as they do exist and may have implications on quality of research and publications.

Although the objective of our research was not to assess the quality of the peer-review system, we believe all aspects of the process are interlinked and both peer review quality and speed are not mutually exclusive and must be discussed simultaneously. The majority (61%) of respondents believe that the review process should be altered with a number of suggestions such as a referee reward system, defined deadlines and policies, editorial persistence, better journal management, changing the norms of the peer-review process and others. Currently, researchers are rewarded based on productivity, which may result in a system breakdown by increasing demand from a short supply of reviewers and subsequently degrading quality of publications associated with the race to publish [ 32 ]. We suggest a partial shift in institutional rewards and incentives from researcher productivity to greater outreach efforts and public interactions/activities, as there is evidence that conservation goals may be more effectively achieved by engaging the public. Implementing a system that rewards these actions in conjunction with productivity may alleviate pressure in the peer review system overall, and increase conservation successes. Training for peer review is a possibility to improve quality of reviews as well as increase the pool of reviewers by including early career scientists and graduate students. Generally, there is a call from a number of authors to revise and review our own peer review system to ensure its persistence and quality control.

Open access and opening the peer review process is on the forefront of publishing innovation. For example, PeerJ ( www.peerj.com ) offers a novel approach that combines open access and a pre-print system that enables articles to be made available online more rapidly than traditional scholarly publishing. ScienceOpen ( www.scienceopen.com ) immediately publishes the manuscripts in Open Access and accepts continuous open review in a transparent Post-Publication Peer Review process. Such approaches will require time to determine their value to the scientific community, but as scholarly publishing continues to rapidly evolve, experimental approaches to enhancing the communication of peer-reviewed research are warranted. We encourage other scientists and publishers to build on these approaches and continue to push the envelope for new publishing approaches.

Peer reviewed journals will continue to be the primary means by which we vet scientific research and communicate novel discoveries to fellow scientists and the community at large, but as shown here, there is much room for improvement. We provided one of the first evaluations of an important component of the publishing machine, and our results indicate a desire for researchers to streamline the peer-review process. While our sample may not be generalizable to the entire global community of researchers in the field of conservation biology, we believe the opinions, perceptions, and information provided here present an important collective voice that should be discussed more broadly. While the technology is in place to accelerate peer-review, the process itself is still lagging behind the need of researchers, managers, policy-makers, and the public, particularly for time-sensitive research areas such as conservation biology. Moving forward, we should encourage experimental and innovative approaches to enhance and expedite the peer-review process.

Supporting Information

S1 file. complete list of survey questions..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132557.s001

S2 File. GLM data analysis supplement for Models 1–3.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132557.s002

S3 File. Raw questionnaire data.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132557.s003

Acknowledgments

We thank all of the study participants who took the time to share their perspectives. Funding was provided by the Canada Research Chairs Program and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: SJC NH AJG MRD NRH ADMW VMN. Performed the experiments: VMN LFGG NRH. Analyzed the data: VMN LFGG. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: VMN LFGG SJC. Wrote the paper: VMN NRH LFGG ADMW AJG MRD NH SJC.

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• PubMed/NCBI
• 10. Harnad S (1996) Implementing peer review on the Net: scientific quality control in scholarly electronic journals. In Peek R. and Newby G., eds. Scholarly publishing: the electronic frontier. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
• 19. Strauss AL (1998) Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory 2nd ed. SAGE Publications Inc. Thousand Oaks, United States.
• 20. Chambers JM (1992) Linear models. Chapter 4 of Statistical Models in S eds Chambers J. M. and Hastie T.J., Wadsworth & Brooks/Cole
• 21. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker N, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. New York: Springer.
• 25. Davis P (2013; Internet). Society for Scholarly Publishing—Rewarding reviewers: money, prestige, or some of both? [updated 2013 Feb 22; cited 2015 Feb 27] Available: http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/02/22/rewarding-reviewers-money-prestige-or-some-of-both/
• 31. Wiley Online Library [Internet]. Transferable Peer Review Pilot (cited 2015 Feb 27) Available: http://olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-819213.html
• 33. British Ecological Society [Internet]. A guide to peer review in ecology and evolution (cited 2015 February 27). Available: http://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/wp-

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

• LISTEN & FOLLOW
• Apple Podcasts
• Google Podcasts
• Amazon Music
• Amazon Alexa

Your support helps make our show possible and unlocks access to our sponsor-free feed.

The order your siblings were born in may play a role in identity and sexuality

Selena Simmons-Duffin

Rachel Carlson

Rebecca Ramirez

It's National Siblings Day ! To mark the occasion, guest host Selena Simmons-Duffin is exploring a detail very personal to her: How the number of older brothers a person has can influence their sexuality.

Scientific research on sexuality has a dark history, with long-lasting harmful effects on queer communities. Much of the early research has also been debunked over time. But not this "fraternal birth order effect." The fact that a person's likelihood of being gay increases with each older brother has been found all over the world – from Turkey to North America, Brazil, the Netherlands and beyond. Today, Selena gets into all the details: What this effect is, how it's been studied and what it can (and can't) explain about sexuality.

Interested in the science of our closest relatives? Check out more stories in NPR's series on the Science of Siblings .

Email us at [email protected] — we'd love to hear from you.

Listen to Short Wave on Spotify , Apple Podcasts and Google Podcasts .

Listen to every episode of Short Wave sponsor-free and support our work at NPR by signing up for Short Wave+ at plus.npr.org/shortwave .

This episode was produced by Rachel Carlson. It was edited by Rebecca Ramirez and fact-checked by Brit Hanson. Maggie Luthar was the audio engineer.

More from the Science of Siblings series:

• The origin story of National Sibling Day is a celebration of love — and grief
• In the womb, a brother's hormones can shape a sister's future
• These identical twins both grew up with autism, but took very different paths
• birth order

Read our research on: Gun Policy | International Conflict | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

7 facts about americans and taxes.

Spring reliably brings a whirlwind of number-crunching and form-filing as Americans finish their tax returns. Altogether, the IRS expects to process more than 160 million individual and business tax returns this season.

Ahead of Tax Day on April 15, here are seven facts about Americans and federal taxes, drawn from Pew Research Center surveys and analyses of federal data.

Ahead of Tax Day 2024, Pew Research Center sought to understand Americans’ views of the federal tax system and outline some of its features.

The public opinion data in this analysis comes from Pew Research Center surveys. Links to these surveys, including details about their methodologies, are available in the text.

The external data comes from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget and the IRS Data Book . Data is reported by fiscal year, which for the federal government begins Oct. 1 and ends Sept. 30. For example, fiscal 2024 began Oct. 1, 2023, and ends Sept. 30, 2024.

A majority of Americans feel that corporations and wealthy people don’t pay their fair share in taxes, according to a Center survey from spring 2023 . About six-in-ten U.S. adults say they’re bothered a lot by the feeling that some corporations (61%) and some wealthy people (60%) don’t pay their fair share.

Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to feel this way. Among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, about three-quarters say they’re bothered a lot by the feeling that some corporations (77%) and some wealthy people (77%) don’t pay their fair share. Much smaller shares of Republicans and GOP leaners share these views (46% say this about corporations and 43% about the wealthy).

Meanwhile, about two-thirds of Americans (65%) support raising tax rates on large businesses and corporations, and a similar share (61%) support raising tax rates on households with annual incomes over $400,000. Democrats are much more likely than Republicans to say these tax rates should increase.

Just over half of U.S. adults feel they personally pay more than what is fair, considering what they get in return from the federal government, according to the same survey.

This sentiment has grown more widespread in recent years: 56% of Americans now say they pay more than their fair share in taxes, up from 49% in 2021. Roughly a third (34%) say they pay about the right amount, and 8% say they pay less than their fair share.

Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say they pay more than their fair share (63% vs. 50%), though the share of Democrats who feel this way has risen since 2021. (The share among Republicans is statistically unchanged from 2021.)

Many Americans are frustrated by the complexity of the federal tax system, according to the same survey. About half (53%) say its complexity bothers them a lot. Of the aspects of the federal tax system that we asked about, this was the top frustration among Republicans – 59% say it bothers them a lot, compared with 49% of Democrats.

Undeniably, the federal tax code is a massive document, and it has only gotten longer over time. The printed 2022 edition of the Internal Revenue Code clocks in at 4,192 pages, excluding front matter. Income tax law alone accounts for over half of those pages (2,544).

The public is divided in its views of the IRS. In a separate spring 2023 Center survey , 51% of Americans said they have an unfavorable opinion of the government tax agency, while 42% had a favorable view of the IRS. Still, of the 16 federal agencies and departments we asked about, the IRS was among the least popular on the list.

Views of the IRS differ greatly by party:

• Among Republicans, 29% have a favorable view and 64% have an unfavorable view.
• Among Democrats, it’s 53% favorable and 40% unfavorable.

On balance, Democrats offer much more positive opinions than Republicans when it comes to most of the federal agencies we asked about. Even so, the IRS ranks near the bottom of their list.

Individual income taxes are by far the government’s largest single source of revenue, according to estimates from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

The federal government expects to collect about $2.5 trillion in individual income taxes in fiscal year 2024. That accounts for nearly half (49%) of its total estimated receipts for the year. The next largest chunk comes from Social Security taxes (including those for disability and retirement programs), which are projected to pull in $1.2 trillion this fiscal year (24%).

By comparison, corporate income taxes are estimated to bring in $612.8 billion, or 12% of this fiscal year’s federal receipts. And excise taxes – which include things like transportation trust fund revenue and taxes on alcohol, tobacco and crude oil – are expected to come to $99.7 billion, or 2% of receipts.

American tax dollars mostly go to social services. Human services – including education, health, Social Security, Medicare, income security and veterans benefits – together will account for 66% ($4.6 trillion) of federal government spending in fiscal 2024, according to OMB estimates.

An estimated 13% ($907.7 billion) will go toward defense spending. Another 13% ($888.6 billion) will repay net interest on government debt, and 10% ($726.9 billion) will fund all other functions, including energy, transportation, agriculture and more.

Related: 6 facts about Americans’ views of government spending and the deficit

The vast majority of Americans e-file their taxes, according to IRS data . In fiscal 2022, 150.6 million individual federal income tax returns were filed electronically, accounting for 94% of all individual filings that year.

Unsurprisingly, e-filing has become more popular since the turn of the century. Fiscal 2000, the earliest year for which comparable data is available, saw 35.4 million individual income tax returns filed electronically (including those filed over the phone). These accounted for just 28% of individual filings that year.

By fiscal 2005, more than half of individual income tax returns (52%) were filed electronically.

Note: This is an update combining information from two posts originally published in 2014 and 2015.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivered Saturday mornings

Top tax frustrations for Americans: The feeling that some corporations, wealthy people don’t pay fair share

Growing partisan divide over fairness of the nation’s tax system, public has mixed expectations for new tax law, most popular.

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

How Long Should a Research Title Be? Data from 104,161 Examples

I analyzed a random sample of 104,161 full-text research papers, uploaded to PubMed Central between the years 2016 and 2021, to learn more about title length.

I used the BioC API to download the data (see the References section below).

Here’s a summary of the key findings

1. The median title was 14 words long (equivalent to 103 characters), and 90% of titles in the sample were between 6 and 25 words.

2. The 10-year trend shows an increase in title length from an average of 103 characters in 2012 to 111 characters in 2021.

3. Since Google shows only the first 60 characters of titles in its results page, 89.2% of titles in our sample will be truncated when they appear in Google search. And the median title loses 41.7% of its words in this process .

4. On average, review articles (systematic reviews and meta-analyses) had longer titles (16 words) compared to original research articles (14 words) .

5. L onger articles are not associated with longer titles .

6. Articles published in high impact journals tend to have shorter titles than average .

1. Overall title length

In our sample of 104,161 articles, the mean title length was 14.7 words, and the distribution of title word count had an expected right skew:

Here’s a table that describes the title word and character counts in the sample:

From these data, we can conclude that most titles were between 11 and 18 words long (80 to 129 characters).

The shortest title was:

“Cellular Inheritance” Link to the article on PubMed

Length: 2 words (21characters)

And the longest title was:

“Safety and efficacy of alpha‐amylase from Bacillus amyloliquefaciens DSM 9553, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens NCIMB 30251, Aspergillus oryzae CBS 585.94 and Aspergillus oryzae ATTC SD‐5374, endo‐1,4‐beta‐glucanase from Trichoderma reesei ATCC PTA‐10001, Trichoderma reesei ATCC SD‐6331 and Aspergillus niger CBS 120604, endo‐1,4‐beta‐xylanase from Trichoderma koningii MUCL 39203 and Trichoderma citrinoviride CBS 614.94 and endo‐1,3(4)‐beta‐glucanase from Aspergillus tubingensis MUCL 39199 as silage additives for all animal species” Link to the article on PubMed

Length: 148 words (1,097 characters)

2. Title length 10-year trend

The following is a plot of the average title character count each year, for the past 10 years:

The 10-year trend shows an increase in title length from an average of 103 characters in 2012 to 111 characters in 2021.

3. Titles as they appear in Google search

The results page of Google shows only the first 60 characters of titles and the rest is truncated. So, the first 60 characters constitute the part of a research title that is visible to users.

As an example, let’s try to search on Google for the article that had the longest title in our sample (1,097 characters).

In Google’s search field, I typed: “safety and efficacy of alpha-amylase” pubmed.

Here’s the response:

What happened is that Google chose a part of the title (specifically, 57 characters from the title) and displayed it in its results page.

We can all agree that this is horrible!

All these people who are searching online for the safety and efficacy for alpha-amylase are seeing a title that has nothing to do with their search, and will probably end up not clicking on that title.

So how many research titles get truncated by Google search? and what percentage of these title is invisible to users?

Based on our sample data, 89.2% of titles were longer than 60 characters and therefore will be truncated when they appear on the results page of Google. And the median title has 41.7% of its words invisible to online users.

Conclusion:

When writing a research title, make sure:

• To keep it as short as possible
• That the visible part in an online search (the first 60 characters) is meaningful. Journalists call this: front loading–i.e. important words should be put close to the beginning.

4. Title length for different article types

In our sample of 104,161 articles, review articles (systematic reviews and meta-analyses) had longer titles (median: 16 words; n=2,851 articles) compared to original research articles (median: 14 words; n=101,310 articles).

5. Influence of article length on title length

To study the influence of article length on title length, I ran a Poisson regression model that predicts the title character count given the whole article word count.

According to the output of that model:

A research article that has 1000 more words, has a title that is 1% longer.

Although this result is statistically significant, it is practically negligible, since an article that has 1000 words more than the median is associated with a title that is only 1 character longer.

In practice, longer research articles are not associated with longer titles.

6. Length of titles in different journals

The following table shows the maximum title length allowed in 10 famous scientific journals according to their “instructions for authors” available from their websites:

According to this table, famous journals recommend keeping titles below 126.6 characters on average. But 27% of the titles in our sample exceed this limit.

So where are these 27% of articles published?

More generally, do higher-quality journals prefer publishing shorter titles?

In order to answer this question, I ran a Poisson regression that models the title word count given the journal impact factor. Here’s the model’s output:

The model shows that a higher journal impact factor is associated with shorter titles. Specifically, a 1 unit increase in the journal impact factor is associated with a decrease of 1.1% in the title word count. For the median article, this means that a 1 unit increase in the journal impact factor is associated with a decrease of 0.15 words (or approximately 1 character) in the title.

On average, higher-quality journals tend to publish slightly shorter titles.

• Comeau DC, Wei CH, Islamaj Doğan R, and Lu Z. PMC text mining subset in BioC: about 3 million full text articles and growing,  Bioinformatics , btz070, 2019.

Further reading

• Can a Research Title Be a Question? Real-World Examples
• How Long Should a Research Paper Be? Data from 61,519 Examples
• How Many References to Cite? Based on 96,685 Research Papers
• How Old Should References Be? Based on 3,823,919 Examples

Watch CBS News

Why is looking at a solar eclipse dangerous without special glasses? Eye doctors explain.

By Sara Moniuszko

Edited By Allison Elyse Gualtieri

Updated on: April 8, 2024 / 8:54 AM EDT / CBS News

The solar eclipse will be visible for millions of Americans on April 8, 2024, making many excited to see it — but how you watch it matters, since it can be dangerous for your eyes. 

A  solar eclipse occurs when the moon passes between the sun and Earth, blocking the sun's light . When the moon blocks some of the sun, it's a partial solar eclipse, but when moon lines up with the sun, blocking all of its light, a total solar eclipse occurs,  NASA explains . Either way, you need eye protection when viewing.

"The solar eclipse will be beautiful, so I hope that everyone experiences it — but they need to experience it in the right way," said Dr. Jason P. Brinton, an ophthalmologist and medical director at Brinton Vision in St. Louis.

Here's what to know to stay safe.

Why is looking at a solar eclipse dangerous?

Looking at the sun — even when it's partially covered like during an eclipse — can cause eye damage.

There is no safe dose of solar ultraviolet rays or infrared radiation, said  Dr. Yehia Hashad , an ophthalmologist, retinal specialist and the chief medical officer at eye health company Bausch + Lomb.

"A very small dose could cause harm to some people," he said. "That's why we say the partial eclipse could also be damaging. And that's why we protect our eyes with the partial as well as with the full sun."

Some say that during a total eclipse, it's safe to view the brief period time when the moon completely blocks the sun without eye protection. But experts warn against it. 

"Totality of the eclipse lasts only about 1 to 3 minutes based on geographic location, and bright sunlight suddenly can appear as the moon continues to move," notes an eclipse viewing guide published in JAMA , adding, "even a few seconds of viewing the sun during an eclipse" can temporarily or permanently damage your vision. 

Do I need special glasses for eclipse viewing?

Yes.  Eclipse glasses are needed to protect your eyes if you want to look at the eclipse.

Regular sunglasses aren't protective enough for eclipse viewing — even if you stack more than one. 

"There's no amount of sunglasses that people can put on that will make up for the filtering that the ISO standard filters and the eclipse glasses provide," Brinton said.

You also shouldn't look at the eclipse through a camera lens, phone, binoculars or telescope, according to NASA, even while wearing eclipse glasses. The solar rays can burn through the lens and cause serious eye injury.

Eclipse glasses must comply with the  ISO 12312-2 international safety standard , according to NASA, and should have an "ISO" label printed on them to show they comply. The American Astronomical Society  has a list  of approved solar viewers.

Can't find these, or they're sold out near you? You can also  make homemade viewers ,   which allow you to observe the eclipse indirectly — just don't accidentally look at the sun while using one.

How to keep kids safe during the solar eclipse

Since this eclipse is expected to occur around the time of dismissal for many schools across the country, it may be tempting for students to view it without the proper safety precautions while getting to and from their buses. That's why some school districts are  canceling classes early so kids can enjoy the event safely with their families.

Dr. Avnish Deobhakta, vitreoretinal surgeon at New York Eye and Ear Infirmary at Mount Sinai, said parents should also be careful because it can be difficult for children to listen or keep solar eclipse glasses on. 

"You want to actually, in my opinion, kind of avoid them even looking at the eclipse, if possible," he said. "Never look directly at the sun, always wear the right eclipse sunglasses if you are going to look at the sun and make sure that those are coming from a reliable source."

Brinton recommends everyone starts their eclipse "viewing" early, by looking at professional photos and videos of an eclipse online or visiting a local planetarium. 

That way, you "have an idea of what to expect," he said. 

He also recommends the foundation  Prevent Blindness , which has resources for families about eclipse safety.

What happens if you look at a solar eclipse without eclipse glasses?

While your eyes likely won't hurt in the moment if you look at the eclipse without protection, due to lowered brightness and where damage occurs in the eye, beware: The rays can still cause damage .

The harm may not be apparent immediately. Sometimes trouble starts to appear one to a few days following the event. It could affect just one or both eyes.

And while some will regain normal visual function, sometimes the damage is permanent. 

"Often there will be some recovery of the vision in the first few months after it, but sometimes there is no recovery and sometimes there's a degree to which it is permanent," Brinton said. 

How long do you have to look at the eclipse to damage your eyes?

Any amount of time looking at the eclipse without protection is too long, experts say. 

"If someone briefly looks at the eclipse, if it's extremely brief, in some cases there won't be damage. But damage can happen even within a fraction of a second in some cases," Brinton said. He said he's had patients who have suffered from solar retinopathy, the official name for the condition.

Deobhakta treated a patient who watched the 2017 solar eclipse for 20 seconds without proper eye protection. She now has permanent damage in the shape of a crescent that interferes with her vision. 

"The crescent that is burned into the retina, the patient sees as black in her visual field," he said. "The visual deficit that she has will never go away."

How to know if you've damaged your eyes from looking at the eclipse

Signs and symptoms of eye damage following an eclipse viewing include headaches, blurred vision, dark spots, changes to how you see color, lines and shapes. 

Unfortunately, there isn't a treatment for solar retinopathy.

"Seeing an eye care professional to solidify the diagnosis and for education I think is reasonable," Brinton said, but added, "right now there is nothing that we do for this. Just wait and give it time and the body does tend to heal up a measure of it."

Sara Moniuszko is a health and lifestyle reporter at CBSNews.com. Previously, she wrote for USA Today, where she was selected to help launch the newspaper's wellness vertical. She now covers breaking and trending news for CBS News' HealthWatch.

More from CBS News

Owe back taxes on April 15? Here's how tax relief can help now.

Transcript: IMF director Kristalina Georgieva on "Face the Nation," April 14, 2024

Should you get a home equity loan before the Fed's April meeting?

3 CD moves to make with inflation increasing