This describes the path from conceive to birth of a medical research paper, describes how an author can plan the entire way of making an original research article.

2. Art
of making an
original research article
its journey from conceive to birth
Dr. Hironmoy Roy
MD (Anat), MBA (NIBM, Pune), MNAMS
DHM (Hosp Management), FAIMER Fellow (CMCL)
Asst. Secretary
Dept. of Medical Education, WB

3. Prologue
Research is to see what everybody else has seen and to
think what nobody else has thought !
Do not condemn the opinion of another because it
differs from your own. You both may be wrong !

4. When you should write a paper
You should have something important enough to share with
others
– new ideas
– new facts or data
– intelligent reviews of old facts and ideas
Mature results
– research milestone completed
– can articulate the research
• clear problem statement, solution, and contribution to
discipline

5. When you should NOT write a paper
Wrong reasons
– want or need publications
• increase publication count
• fame
• publish or perish
– peer pressure
– want to go to a conference
Bad papers/work will reflect badly on you!
– should always be proud of your paper
What We usually do

7. Factors Constraining Research
• Time
• Finance
• Feasibility
• Ethics
• Measurability

9. “Theory of change”
• Step 1. Problem Statement. What is the problem or need
your project is designed to address? Based on literature
review: What is known about this problem or others like it?

10. • Step 2. Intervention Statement. What do you plan to do to
address this problem? Based on literature review: What
similar interventions have already been implemented and
what were the results?
• Step 3. Impact Statement. What measurable impact (goal,
result) do you hope to achieve?

11. • Step 4. Outcomes and Outcomes Chain. In order to achieve
your impact, who or what needs to change? Who or what will
change in the next 1-2 years as a result of your project?

12. • Step 5: Ascertain the methodology-
what honest steps you are going to do with your
research? Are they feasible? Possible? Doable? Fund?

13. Your Guide……Literature review
Print:
• Books
• Scientific journals
• Govt. guidelines,
documents
• National / International
agency reports, documents
• Census, SRS, RGI, NFHS,
reports
• Conference Proceedings
E-Resources:
• Web search
• Web-based Databases
• E-journals, books
13

14. General Search Engines vs. Databases
• Problem of plenty
• Problem of acceptability
• Anybody can upload
anything there !!
(Wikipedia)
• Source authenticity checked
beforehand
• Data validation done in
databases
• Search can be focused by
scientifically formed search
query
14

15. 15

16. The MEDLINE database
Source: US National Library of Medicine
– MEDLARS (MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval
System)
– MEDLAR on line - MEDLINE
– Free to internet users – June 26, 1997
– Contains over 12 million citations from around 4800
journals
– Contains abstracts and selected full text articles
Updated every month
16

17. The MEDLINE database
• Services are offered by the NLM: PubMED
• Restricted use Full Text service: PubMed
Central
• http://www.nlm.nih.gov.
• http://www.pubmed.com
• http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov
17

18. Search Commands
Boolean operators: AND, OR, NOT, ( )
• Saves time and effort by eliminating
inappropriate articles
[British-born Irish mathematician: George Boole]
18

19. Search Command=
Smoking tobacco causes cancer
Articles with
“smoking”
Articles with
“tobacco”
Articles with
“cancer”
Articles with
“smoking causes
cancer”
Articles with
“tobacco causes
cancer”
Articles with “smoking
& tobacco causes
cancer”
About 2,41,00,000 results (0.75 seconds)
~ 2 crore !!!!
Articles with
“causes”

20. Search Command=
(Smoking OR tobacco) AND cancer
Articles with
“smoking causes
cancer”
Articles with
“tobacco causes
cancer” Articles with “smoking
& tobacco causes
cancer”
About 22,50,000 results (0.16 seconds)
~ 22 lac !!!!

21. Search Command=
(Smoking AND tobacco) AND cancer
Articles with “smoking
& tobacco causes
cancer”
About 10,30,000 results (0.14 seconds)
~ 10 lac !!!!

23. Making of the study
• The research protocol needs approval of Institutional
Ethics Committee- MUST
• In multicentric research, IEC approval is essential from all
centres.- MUST
• If questionnaire based study, it must be made validated &
pre-tested
• If used the pre-validated & pre-published questionnaire;
permission is MUST

24. Making of the study
• We shall be aware of “informed consent”
• We shall be honest about our data collection
• It may happen, to change some steps, but still we shall
remain honest.
• Data to be collected personally
• If questionnaire based study, as max as anonymous
• Calculation with 100% honesty, it may not provide the
dreamed result. But honesty is essential.

26. Flow
• Title
• Abstract
• Introduction
• Objective
• Material and methods
• Result
• Discussion
• Acknowledgement
• Bibliography

27. Paper and font
• A4
• Double spacing
• Single side
• Font size: 12
• Font type: Times new roman
(Arial, verdana, georgia, palatino)

28. Formatting
• Format: Justified
• Start every chapter/section in new page
• Margin: Left 1.5” (gutter), Right 1”,
Top 1”,bottom 1.25”
• Leave two spaces after punctuation.
• Two spaces to paragraph
• Not to keep any widow or orphan.
[Widow is single line of a new paragraph at the bottom of a
page]
[Orphan is single terminal line of a para at the top of a page]

29. 1. Title page
• Title of the work
• Running title
• Authors’ name
• Authors’ affiliations
• Name of the institute, where the work has been done
• Source of fund
• Conflict of interest
• Address of correspondence

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

31. Name of
the
contribut
ors
Planning
of the
work
Question
naire
making &
validatin
g
Data
collectio
n
Result
analysis
Writing
the
report
Reviewin
g the
report
Overall
guidance
Financial
support
(if any)
A
B
C
D
E
Most Vital part
Should not be the criteria for
authorship

32. • Title:
BRIEF but COMPLETE
Scientific
Crisp
Meaningful
Punch-line message

33. 2. Abstract
• Compulsory to provide
• Majority people read it
• Should be 250-300 words
• Factually possible points only included
• Should be informative not indicative
• Key words to Indexing

34. 3. Introduction (Rationale/background)
• Rationality of the work
• 3 - 4 paragraphs
1st Paragraph: Concise description of the topic
2nd Paragraph: Global and national burden, rationality
3rd and 4th Paragraph:
 What the world is thinking of it ?
 What the nation is thinking of it?
 Different studies/ researches in this topic- their any point of
contradiction /lacunae, which draws your attention to carry
on this work.

35. Why you
have chosen
it?
Researches world and
nationwide in the
viewpoint of the work,
their deficiencies/
lacunae
Global and national burden,
rationality of the topic
Concise description of the topic

36. 4. Objective (the research question)
• Specific, pin-point
• Carrying one objective in one point
• May be in question format

37. 5. Material and method
• Most important segment of a work
• Determines the strength of a study
• Compulsory segments:
 Study design=
(cross-sectional/ longitudinal/case-control/RCT)
 Study setting= Place of conducting the study
 Study duration= Time framing

38.  Study population = In whom the study is done?
 Sampling = How the author has selected subjects from the
population? What was the selection criteria? What was the
exclusion criteria?
 Tools used = Mention only important tools, mention their
details of make and brand

39. Data collection = Documentation of every details
of the steps followed to collect the data (Figures)
 Exploration of variables = Operational definition
of each variable is to be mentioned
 Analysis tool = How the variables were analysed to
be mentioned
 FLOW CHART OF THE STUDY PLAN
(optional)

40. 6. Result-Analysis
• Section wise
• 1st Section: Demographic distribution of the
study subjects
• Rest sections according to objective
• Each objective should carry individual tables

41. • Table:
1. Not more than 3 variables
2. Numbered in roman
3. Should have a title
4. Should have foot-description
5. Easy statistics

42. • Corresponding graph
1. Numbered in arabics
2. Should have title
3. Should have foot-description
4. Easy to interpret

43. 7. Discussion
• Self narrating/reflecting whole work
• 1st paragraph: rationale (in brief)
• 2nd paragraph: objectives (narration)
• 3rd paragraph: result, objective-wise
• 4th paragraph: explanation in support to your result
(main essence)
• Comparison to previous works ; how your finding is
newer in the field; NOT mere factual comparison

44. 8. Summary & Conclusion
• ‘At a glance’ presentation
• One paragraph
• Importance of the work
• How far the objectives fulfilled?
• Limitations of this work
• Scope for future work

45. • Acknowledgement: optional
 Acknowledge, to whom, who have really
helped in the process
 May be faculties, colleagues, juniors, family
members
 Never forget to acknowledge ground staffs and
your subjects of the study
 It masks the potential “conflict of interest”

46. • Consent form
Should be in local vernacular
Should carry provision for withdrawal
Should carry place of signature of the subject and
witness

47. Bibliography
• Wrong writing = immediate rejection
• Preferably in Vancouver style
• As appears in sequence
• Citing style: [1]
• et al. (el alia) after six authors
• 2 Main components:
1. Bibliographic elements
2. Punctuation marks

48. example
With a long slender oblique retroperitoneal course
over the paravertebral psoas major muscles they
reach the deep inguinal ring, where they crosses the
ureter anteriorly, join with the ductus deferens to
pass through the inguinal canal to reach the testis
[1].
[1] Gabella G. Testicular artery. Anterolateral visceral arteries. In: Williams PL, Bannister LH,
Berry MM, Collins P, Dyson M, Dussek JE, Ferguson MW, eds. Gray’s Anatomy. 38th Ed.,
Edinburgh, Churchill Livingstone. 1995; 318, 1557–1558.

49. Journal bibliography

50. Bibliographic elements
• Authors’ name (use et al. after name
of SIX authors)- Full surname
followed by initial of first name
• Article name (Full name)
• Journal name (PubMed abbreviation
may be used)
• Year of publication
• Volume or issue no.
• Page no.

51. Style of writing
Roy H, Pradhan PP, Deb S. A rare coexistence of
axillo-brachial neurovascular variations with
embryological review. Int J Anat Var 2011;4: 15-8
Authors’ name
Article name
Journal name
Year of publication Volume
Page

52. Punctuation
Roy H, Pradhan PP, Deb S. A rare
coexistence of axillo-brachial neurovascular
variations with embryological review. Int J
Anat Var 2011;4: 15- 8
Comma
Full stop
Just one space
gap
semicolon Colon
hyphen
fullstop

53. Name of authors. Title of the article.
Journal name Year of publication; volume
(issue): page no

54. Book bibliography

55. Bibliographic elements
• Author/editor of the chapter
• Title of the chapter
• Chief editor of the book
• Name of the book
• City of publication
• Name of the publisher
• Edition no.
• Year of publication
• Page no.

56. Style of writing
Johnson D (ed.). Axillary artery. In, Standring S, Borley
N, Collin P (eds). Gray’s Anatomy. The Anatomical
basis of Clinical Practice. 40th Edn., Edinburgh,
Churchill Livingstone-Elsevier, 2008; 814-5.
Section editor
Chapter title
Book editor
Place of
publication
Publisher
Yr of publication
Book title
Edition
Page no

57. Punctuation
Johnson D (ed.). Axillary artery. In, Standring S, Borley N,
Collin P (eds). Gray’s Anatomy. The Anatomical basis of
Clinical Practice. 40th Edn., Edinburgh, Churchill
Livingstone-Elsevier, 2008; 814-5.
(ed.)
In,
Semi-colon
Comma
Full stop
Full stop Full stop

58. Section editor (eds.). Chapter title. In, Book
editors (eds.). Book title, Edition. Place of
publication, publisher, year of publication;
page no.

59. Internet reference

60. Bibliographic elements
• About the article: as for
journal reference
• About the website:
Web address
Cited on
Visited on

61. Internet reference
Roy H, Pradhan PP, Deb S. A rare coexistence of axillo-
brachial neurovascular variations with embryological
review.Int J Anat Var 2011;4:15
(online) Available from URL http://www.ijav.org (accessed
on 23 August 2011)

62. Avoid Plagiarism

64. Publishing
• We shall search for a peer reviewed “indexed
journal”
• Where “money” is not THE criteria for
publication

65. lndexing agencies:
Scopus, PubMed, Medline, Embase/Excerpta Medica,
index medicus and index Copernicus
Types of articles :Original research articles and original
research papers.
Journal:
(i) Published by a National/lnternational Specialty
(ii) Journal of a National/lnternational Society provided it
included in one of the indexes mentioned above.
Authorship: First author, second author.
E-journals: e-journals not included

67. Typical Questions on a Referee Form
1. Briefly summarize the paper (50-100 words)
– can they extract a main message from your
paper?
– “If you can’t, there is probably something wrong
with the paper”

68. 2. What is new and significant in the work reported?
– New:
• has it been done before?
• is it a rehash / republication of old stuff (yours or
others)?
– Significance
• in five years time, would the work have an
identifiable impact? (rare)

69. 3. Would it stimulate further work in this area?
• is it a reasonable increment that keeps the
research area going (frequent)?
• does it have innovations?
• is it interesting?
• is it timely to the community?

70. 4. How does it relate to existing work?
– bibliographies, background, important
omissions...
5. How reliable are the methods used?
– are they adequate to support the conclusions
– is it correct?
• are there any errors (math, loopholes...)

71. 6. How reasonable are the interpretations?
7. unethical to publish something that can’t be reproduced
8. Any grammatical error
9. Is bibliography properly framed?
10. How will you categorise?
a) Accepted
b) Accepted after minor change
c) Accepted after major change
d) Not to be accepted
Dream of every author