Re: How to set up an article writing machine (Re: Writing Scientific Articles)

[Guest guest]

One of the first question to be

                     What should be the topic of research ? How do we decide the topic ? Quite often here PGs try to repeat the work done in some article .

 

Sanjay

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Arin Basu <arin.basu@...> wrote:

 

These questions that Vijay has put up are great pointers in writing scholarly articles. Indeed, scholarly research is a highly writing intensive task. For writing primary research articles and systematic reviews, a practice that we have found very useful over the years is to do the data analyses first.(assuming that the data have already been collected), set up the tables, summarize the key points from the results tables, and then write the summary of article or the paper that we are going to present first. Everything else follows that summarization process.

The tables as derived from the data analyses can undergo several iterative changes as we continuously debate our findings to test that the findings are indeed robust based on the data we have in our hands and the findings that we have found. In general, we bias against ourselves at every step in the data analysis and  argue that the findings may not be true. Also, we try to check our findings through at least more than one means to see if the different approaches produce similar results. If they do,  we know we are in the right track, if not, more analyses are needed or we refine our data analytical strategy.

Once the summary (it does not matter whether the specific journal requires us to send a summary or not, summary writing is for our quality control purpose, and the summary can serve as the starting point for writing abstracts whenever required) is finalized based on the tables, we write the results section and do some research and try to explain the findings, the natural extension of the findings etc for the discussion section. After that is done to our satisfaction, we go for a thorough description and writing of our methods section, keeping in mind particularly about the steps we had taken about sample selection and what did we do for removal of bias (one way or other). The introduction and the background section is done last, tying into the main message of the paper. 

Every research paper should tell a story, some are exciting like a short story with a tail hanging in the end prompting the researcher and the reader to embark on a new journey. For example, causal research typically present findings that encourage others to replicate the original work. Other researches tell other types of stories. Building a theme based message around a central storyline is a very important task before the student or practitioner who has to write a research report. The more attractive/powerful the story, the better the report reads.

Best,

Arin

Sent from my iPad

On 28/03/2011, at 3:30 AM, " Vijay " <drvijaythawani@...> wrote:

 

Since we mostly write these, we will discuss this in greater details.The most popular style of writing these is IMRAD which stands for Introduction, Material & method, Results And Discussion.In these sections we answer the questions:

Why did you start? (Introduction)What did you do? (Methods & material)What did you find? (Results)What does this mean? (Discussion)Vijay

--

Professor Dr Sanjay Bedi

Professor in Pathology

 09996038569

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Sanjay,Interesting point.That brings us to the topic of foreground versus background knowledge and their importance in medicine and research work in general. Background knowledge is knowledge acquired during regular schooling, colleges, and systematic educational activities (including post graduate training and continuing educational activities). Foreground knowledge, on the other hand refers to knowledge that develops from background knowledge and extends the scope of background knowledge to some extent. As we move increasingly along our training and educational years, the need for background knowledge decreases (background knowledge is more relevant for a first year resident or pg student, while foreground knowledge is relevant for a professor or a lecturer who has moved beyond the student stages or trainee stages to more advanced stages of knowledge acquisition). 

Clinical and epidemiological research is usually around building foreground knowledge. Such foreground knowledge generates out of relevant background knowledge that is relevant. Taking the basis of textbook based background knowledge, research questions are generated on the basis of the relevant foreground knowledge in the subject area. This is where the role of a " guide " /professor/mentor comes into the picture.

Best,Arin

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Dr. Sanjay Bedi <drsanjaybedi@...> wrote:

 

One of the first question to be

                     What should be the topic of research ? How do we decide the topic ? Quite often here PGs try to repeat the work done in some article .

 

Sanjay

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Arin Basu <arin.basu@...> wrote:

 

These questions that Vijay has put up are great pointers in writing scholarly articles. Indeed, scholarly research is a highly writing intensive task. For writing primary research articles and systematic reviews, a practice that we have found very useful over the years is to do the data analyses first.(assuming that the data have already been collected), set up the tables, summarize the key points from the results tables, and then write the summary of article or the paper that we are going to present first. Everything else follows that summarization process.

The tables as derived from the data analyses can undergo several iterative changes as we continuously debate our findings to test that the findings are indeed robust based on the data we have in our hands and the findings that we have found. In general, we bias against ourselves at every step in the data analysis and  argue that the findings may not be true. Also, we try to check our findings through at least more than one means to see if the different approaches produce similar results. If they do,  we know we are in the right track, if not, more analyses are needed or we refine our data analytical strategy.

Once the summary (it does not matter whether the specific journal requires us to send a summary or not, summary writing is for our quality control purpose, and the summary can serve as the starting point for writing abstracts whenever required) is finalized based on the tables, we write the results section and do some research and try to explain the findings, the natural extension of the findings etc for the discussion section. After that is done to our satisfaction, we go for a thorough description and writing of our methods section, keeping in mind particularly about the steps we had taken about sample selection and what did we do for removal of bias (one way or other). The introduction and the background section is done last, tying into the main message of the paper. 

Every research paper should tell a story, some are exciting like a short story with a tail hanging in the end prompting the researcher and the reader to embark on a new journey. For example, causal research typically present findings that encourage others to replicate the original work. Other researches tell other types of stories. Building a theme based message around a central storyline is a very important task before the student or practitioner who has to write a research report. The more attractive/powerful the story, the better the report reads.

Best,

Arin

Sent from my iPad

On 28/03/2011, at 3:30 AM, " Vijay " <drvijaythawani@...> wrote:

 

Since we mostly write these, we will discuss this in greater details.The most popular style of writing these is IMRAD which stands for Introduction, Material & method, Results And Discussion.In these sections we answer the questions:

Why did you start? (Introduction)What did you do? (Methods & material)What did you find? (Results)What does this mean? (Discussion)Vijay

--

Professor Dr Sanjay Bedi

Professor in Pathology

 09996038569

 

[Guest guest]

Thanks Arin . I like the checklist apparoach.

 

Checklists have an important role in framing good research questions

 

Every process can be broken in checklists eg

a simple process like staining a slide

 

1) Collecting blood  Can it be improved/modified

2) Making a slide Can it be improved/modified

3) Placing leishmans stain on the slide Can it be improved/modified

4) Placing buffered water Can it be improved/modified

5)Cleaning the slide Can it be improved/modified

6) Seeing under the microscope   Can it be improved/modified

By breaking up any process in to checklist/cybernetic points (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics ) we can identify many research questions.

(Many years ago I did a course in Energo Cybernetic Strategy  which has made a difference.)

 

Dr Sanjay Bedi

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Arin Basu <arin.basu@...> wrote:

 

Hi Sanjay,

Interesting point.

That brings us to the topic of foreground versus background knowledge and their importance in medicine and research work in general. Background knowledge is knowledge acquired during regular schooling, colleges, and systematic educational activities (including post graduate training and continuing educational activities). Foreground knowledge, on the other hand refers to knowledge that develops from background knowledge and extends the scope of background knowledge to some extent. As we move increasingly along our training and educational years, the need for background knowledge decreases (background knowledge is more relevant for a first year resident or pg student, while foreground knowledge is relevant for a professor or a lecturer who has moved beyond the student stages or trainee stages to more advanced stages of knowledge acquisition). 

Clinical and epidemiological research is usually around building foreground knowledge. Such foreground knowledge generates out of relevant background knowledge that is relevant. Taking the basis of textbook based background knowledge, research questions are generated on the basis of the relevant foreground knowledge in the subject area. This is where the role of a " guide " /professor/mentor comes into the picture.

Best,

Arin

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Dr. Sanjay Bedi <drsanjaybedi@...> wrote:

 

One of the first question to be

                     What should be the topic of research ? How do we decide the topic ? Quite often here PGs try to repeat the work done in some article .

 

Sanjay

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Arin Basu <arin.basu@...> wrote:

 

These questions that Vijay has put up are great pointers in writing scholarly articles. Indeed, scholarly research is a highly writing intensive task. For writing primary research articles and systematic reviews, a practice that we have found very useful over the years is to do the data analyses first.(assuming that the data have already been collected), set up the tables, summarize the key points from the results tables, and then write the summary of article or the paper that we are going to present first. Everything else follows that summarization process.

The tables as derived from the data analyses can undergo several iterative changes as we continuously debate our findings to test that the findings are indeed robust based on the data we have in our hands and the findings that we have found. In general, we bias against ourselves at every step in the data analysis and  argue that the findings may not be true. Also, we try to check our findings through at least more than one means to see if the different approaches produce similar results. If they do,  we know we are in the right track, if not, more analyses are needed or we refine our data analytical strategy.

Once the summary (it does not matter whether the specific journal requires us to send a summary or not, summary writing is for our quality control purpose, and the summary can serve as the starting point for writing abstracts whenever required) is finalized based on the tables, we write the results section and do some research and try to explain the findings, the natural extension of the findings etc for the discussion section. After that is done to our satisfaction, we go for a thorough description and writing of our methods section, keeping in mind particularly about the steps we had taken about sample selection and what did we do for removal of bias (one way or other). The introduction and the background section is done last, tying into the main message of the paper. 

Every research paper should tell a story, some are exciting like a short story with a tail hanging in the end prompting the researcher and the reader to embark on a new journey. For example, causal research typically present findings that encourage others to replicate the original work. Other researches tell other types of stories. Building a theme based message around a central storyline is a very important task before the student or practitioner who has to write a research report. The more attractive/powerful the story, the better the report reads.

Best,

Arin

Sent from my iPad

On 28/03/2011, at 3:30 AM, " Vijay " <drvijaythawani@...> wrote:

 

Since we mostly write these, we will discuss this in greater details.The most popular style of writing these is IMRAD which stands for Introduction, Material & method, Results And Discussion.In these sections we answer the questions:

Why did you start? (Introduction)What did you do? (Methods & material)What did you find? (Results)What does this mean? (Discussion)Vijay

--

Professor Dr Sanjay Bedi

Professor in Pathology

 09996038569

 

--

Professor Dr Sanjay Bedi

Professor in Pathology

 09996038569

 

[Guest guest]

This is an excellent approach and makes a lot of sense. The role of checklists is very important in medical care, and as you state, even in medical education and research, as indeed in almost all walks of life when implemented. Dr Atul Gawande, the Indian-American surgeon has populartized the concept of checklist in surgical wards and operation rooms, with great success (see http://gawande.com/the-checklist-manifesto ). I am a fan of checklists and I think they work very well when appropriately implemented. 

ArinOn Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 2:28 AM, Dr. Sanjay Bedi <drsanjaybedi@...> wrote:

 

Thanks Arin . I like the checklist apparoach.

 

Checklists have an important role in framing good research questions

 

Every process can be broken in checklists eg

a simple process like staining a slide

 

1) Collecting blood  Can it be improved/modified

2) Making a slide Can it be improved/modified

3) Placing leishmans stain on the slide Can it be improved/modified

4) Placing buffered water Can it be improved/modified

5)Cleaning the slide Can it be improved/modified

6) Seeing under the microscope   Can it be improved/modified

By breaking up any process in to checklist/cybernetic points (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics ) we can identify many research questions.

(Many years ago I did a course in Energo Cybernetic Strategy  which has made a difference.)

 

Dr Sanjay Bedi

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Arin Basu <arin.basu@...> wrote:

 

Hi Sanjay,

Interesting point.

That brings us to the topic of foreground versus background knowledge and their importance in medicine and research work in general. Background knowledge is knowledge acquired during regular schooling, colleges, and systematic educational activities (including post graduate training and continuing educational activities). Foreground knowledge, on the other hand refers to knowledge that develops from background knowledge and extends the scope of background knowledge to some extent. As we move increasingly along our training and educational years, the need for background knowledge decreases (background knowledge is more relevant for a first year resident or pg student, while foreground knowledge is relevant for a professor or a lecturer who has moved beyond the student stages or trainee stages to more advanced stages of knowledge acquisition). 

Clinical and epidemiological research is usually around building foreground knowledge. Such foreground knowledge generates out of relevant background knowledge that is relevant. Taking the basis of textbook based background knowledge, research questions are generated on the basis of the relevant foreground knowledge in the subject area. This is where the role of a " guide " /professor/mentor comes into the picture.

Best,

Arin

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Dr. Sanjay Bedi <drsanjaybedi@...> wrote:

 

One of the first question to be

                     What should be the topic of research ? How do we decide the topic ? Quite often here PGs try to repeat the work done in some article .

 

Sanjay

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Arin Basu <arin.basu@...> wrote:

 

These questions that Vijay has put up are great pointers in writing scholarly articles. Indeed, scholarly research is a highly writing intensive task. For writing primary research articles and systematic reviews, a practice that we have found very useful over the years is to do the data analyses first.(assuming that the data have already been collected), set up the tables, summarize the key points from the results tables, and then write the summary of article or the paper that we are going to present first. Everything else follows that summarization process.

The tables as derived from the data analyses can undergo several iterative changes as we continuously debate our findings to test that the findings are indeed robust based on the data we have in our hands and the findings that we have found. In general, we bias against ourselves at every step in the data analysis and  argue that the findings may not be true. Also, we try to check our findings through at least more than one means to see if the different approaches produce similar results. If they do,  we know we are in the right track, if not, more analyses are needed or we refine our data analytical strategy.

Once the summary (it does not matter whether the specific journal requires us to send a summary or not, summary writing is for our quality control purpose, and the summary can serve as the starting point for writing abstracts whenever required) is finalized based on the tables, we write the results section and do some research and try to explain the findings, the natural extension of the findings etc for the discussion section. After that is done to our satisfaction, we go for a thorough description and writing of our methods section, keeping in mind particularly about the steps we had taken about sample selection and what did we do for removal of bias (one way or other). The introduction and the background section is done last, tying into the main message of the paper. 

Every research paper should tell a story, some are exciting like a short story with a tail hanging in the end prompting the researcher and the reader to embark on a new journey. For example, causal research typically present findings that encourage others to replicate the original work. Other researches tell other types of stories. Building a theme based message around a central storyline is a very important task before the student or practitioner who has to write a research report. The more attractive/powerful the story, the better the report reads.

Best,

Arin

Sent from my iPad

On 28/03/2011, at 3:30 AM, " Vijay " <drvijaythawani@...> wrote:

 

Since we mostly write these, we will discuss this in greater details.The most popular style of writing these is IMRAD which stands for Introduction, Material & method, Results And Discussion.In these sections we answer the questions:

Why did you start? (Introduction)What did you do? (Methods & material)What did you find? (Results)What does this mean? (Discussion)Vijay

--

Professor Dr Sanjay Bedi

Professor in Pathology

 09996038569

 

--

Professor Dr Sanjay Bedi

Professor in Pathology

 09996038569