1111

Nursing and Health Sciences

(2003),

5

, 1 – 2

Editorial

Blackwell Science, LtdOxford, UK NHSNursing and Health Sciences1441-07452003 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd

51March 2003

137 Writing a scholarly manuscript

V.A. Lambert et al.

10.1046/j.1441-0745.2002.00137.x

Research ArticleBEES SGML

Basic tips about writing a scholarly manuscript

As editors, we are often asked about basic tips on writ- ing a scholarly manuscript. Such an inquiry is not easy to answer in a one-page editorial. Thus, we have selected to address only a few items that may help in strengthening one’s manuscript and potential selection for publication. The items selected are the result of def- icits that we have identified in many of the manuscripts sent to us by unseasoned authors. They include: writing a title that poorly reflects the essence of the content, failure to capture the reader’s attention in the early sections of the manuscript, failure to produce what was promised in the introductory section of the text, failure to develop ideas to completion, lack of focus and direc- tion of the presentation of ideas, complex and incom- prehensible sentence structure, lack of logical flow to the content presented, and failure to logically link the content between sentences and between paragraphs. We will briefly address each of the items and provide some basic suggestions for correcting them.

An author must always be sensitive to the title of the manuscript. The title is the author’s first, and sometimes last, chance to capture the interest of the reader. Boring and poorly described titles may lose a potentially interested reader. We advise the use of titles that are concise and descriptive, but reflective of the exact content of the article. Based upon the title there should be no surprises to the reader about what the manuscript is going to provide. The title sets the stage for what the reader should expect in the text and provides the necessary information for electroni- cally locating the published manuscript.

It is essential for the manuscript to quickly capture the reader. If the reader’s attention is not captured, the likelihood that he/she will read the entire manu- script is limited. All authors need to remember that the intent of a published piece of work is to dissemi- nate new information to the greater world of the spe- cific discipline under discussion in the manuscript. If no one wants to read the written work, the author’s ideas are not disseminated. There are many ways to obtain the reader’s interest, but the best tactic is to tell the reader exactly what the article is going to say. This needs to occur very early in the written work. Stating the purpose or position of the manuscript in the first or second paragraph (if possible) accom- plishes such a goal.

Once the author has delineated the purpose of the manuscript, he/she must present what was promised. There is nothing more disconcerting, for a reader, than to be told by the author that the manuscript will provide information about a specific topic and then find that the author does not deliver. If an author promises to report the findings of a specific study, that is exactly what the reader of the written work should find. If the author promises to delineate guidelines for best practices in the care of specific patients, the reader must be able to find these guidelines in the manuscript. Too often inexperienced authors will indi- cate in the introductory section of the manuscript that a certain approach to the content will be taken, then present something entirely different.

When presenting information about a topic, an author also must provide a comprehensive, yet con- cise presentation of the content. Often, new authors want to ensure that the reader is made aware of how much literature they have examined. As a result, a rambling and extensive review of content that con- fuses the reader is produced. The reader loses interest because the content presented appears to have no apparent purpose or goal. As editors, we often find inexperienced authors, when presenting the review of the literature for a research manuscript, provide a massive amount of content that is not concisely sum- marized and focused. Such literature reviews often read like an annotated bibliography. This type of liter- ature review fails to tell the reader, in summary form, the state of the science currently under examination, what gaps in knowledge exist, and the justification for why the research needed to be conducted.

A quality manuscript should focus on the content being presented and maintain that focus throughout the paper. One of the most common errors made by new authors is writing a two or three-in-one manu- script. Such a manuscript presents two or more topics, or even positions. Because such a manuscript tends to keep switching directions, the reader is unsure of what the manuscript is really about and comes away with absolutely no idea as to what the author had intended to say. This probably is one of the most common rea- sons for a reviewer to reject a manuscript for publica- tion. To avoid this pitfall, we recommend that the author drafts an outline and refers to it constantly as

2 V. A. Lambert

et al

.

the manuscript is being written. An outline helps keep the author focused and on track. As the manuscript unfolds, if need be, the author can make revisions to the outline. However, the author must remain true to the original intent and purpose of the manuscript, or the focus of the scholarly work will be lost.

Inexperienced authors attempt to make their manuscripts appear to be scholarly by using many complex, compound sentences. The outcome is the creation of many run-on sentences that have several ideas. As a result, the reader becomes confused, even after re-reading the sentences. Therefore, keep the sentence structure as simple as possible. Many manu- scripts fail to follow this basic rule of sentence struc- ture. A sentence should use the fewest words and the least pretentious phrasing. An author wants the reader to clearly understand what it is he/she is attempting to express.

Clarity of expression also is facilitated by the use of a natural order in the presentation of information. The first draft of a manuscript, even for highly experi- enced authors, is not the final product! Writing a manuscript, putting it aside and reading it later, assists one to discern the natural order or ‘flow’ of the content. For example, a research manuscript should not present the findings of a study before discussing the present state of the science related to the topic (i.e. review of literature). Such a sequencing of con- tent is not logical and fails to follow the normal thought process of the research process. Again, using an outline can assist in creating a logical flow to the content within a manuscript.

Logical flow also is facilitated by the use of appro- priate content linkages between sentences within a

paragraph and between paragraphs. A major diffi- culty encountered by inexperienced authors is the lack of transition of ideas within and between para- graphs. A manuscript must have linkages from one sentence to another and from one paragraph to another. To have a sudden change in thought between sentences and between paragraphs indicates a poorly crafted manuscript. When reading one’s written work, an author should always ask the ques- tion, ‘Does the previous sentence or previous para- graph prepare the reader for what to expect next?’ If this question cannot be answered with a ‘yes’, then there probably are jumps in thought in the manuscript. Having one’s colleagues read the manu- script is an advisable means for helping with the identification of areas where ‘jumps in thought’ are present.

In summary, keeping the aforementioned points in mind can assist in writing a more scholarly manu- script. The points addressed are only a few of the aspects of quality writing. However, adhering to the suggestions presented can assist the less experienced author with preparing a better manuscript. Preparing a scholarly manuscript requires attention to detail, accepting critique from colleagues, and undertaking numerous rewrites before submission! Even though quality written work requires a great deal of effort on the part of an author, the outcome can be the produc- tion of something that is considered noteworthy by others.

Vickie A. Lambert,

RN

,

DNSc

,

FAAN

Clinton E. Lambert,

RN

,

PhD

,

CS

,

FAAN

Masato Tsukahara,

MD

,

PhD

Editors-in-Chief