What to Scrutinize in Different Sections of Research Manuscripts? Discover Insights on Why How Where and When!

Abstract

A well-written manuscript has the following components included: 

a clear title, 

abstract, 

introductory paragraph, methods and materials section, discussion of results, conclusion and 

a list of references

There are five MAJOR parts of a Research Report:

• Introduction.
• Review of Literature.
• Methods.
• Results.
• Discussion.

To critically analyze and evaluate the research manuscript the following pertinent questions must be kept in mind 

• What is the research question?

• What is the primary methodology used?

• How was the data gathered?

• How is the data presented?

• What are the main conclusions?

• Are these conclusions reasonable?

• What theories are used to support the researcher's conclusions?

Keywords

Introduction. Literature.

Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion, Clarity, Evidences, 

Learning Outcomes

After undergoing this article you will be able to understand about  what to Scrutinize in Different Sections of Research Manuscripts and Discover Insights on Why How Where and When!

So let's proceed ...

1. Introduction 

The Introduction of the topic logically and scientifically I e. A well-written introduction:

Sets out the argument

Summarizes recent research related to the topic

Highlights gaps in current understanding or conflicts in current knowledge

Establishes the originality of the research aims by demonstrating the need for investigations in the topic area

Gives a clear idea of the target readership, why the research was carried out and the novelty and topicality of the manuscript

Originality of the topic and emerging Topicality 

Originality and topicality can only be established in the light of recent authoritative research. 

For example, it's impossible to argue that there is a conflict in current understanding by referencing articles that are 10 years old.

• Authors may make the case that a topic hasn't been investigated in several years and that new research is required. 

• This point is only valid if researchers can point to recent developments in data gathering techniques.

•  Or to research in indirectly related fields that suggest the topic needs revisiting. 

• Clearly, authors can only do this by referencing recent literature. 

• Obviously, where older research is seminal or where aspects of the methodology rely upon it, then it is perfectly appropriate for authors to cite some older papers.

• So more than 5 years old research paper (s) should be avoided, but if pertinent in current situation then may be included.

Aims and objectives 

It's common for the introduction to end by stating the research aims. 

• By this point you should already have a good impression of them - 
  
• If the explicit aims come as a surprise, then the introduction needs improvement.

2. Materials and Methods

Academic research should be replicable, repeatable and robust - and follow best practices.

Replicable Research

• This makes sufficient use of:

• Control experiments

• Repeated analyses

• Repeated experiments

• Sampling

• These are used to make sure observed trends are not due to chance and that the same experiment could be repeated by other researchers - and result in the same outcome.

• Statistical analyses will not be sound if methods are not replicable. 

• Where research is not replicable, the paper should be recommended for rejection.

Repeatable Methods

These give enough detail so that other researchers are able to carry out the same research.

• For example, equipment used or sampling methods should all be described in detail so that others could follow the same steps. 
  
• Where methods are not detailed enough, it's usual to ask for the methods section to be revised.

Robust Research

This has enough data points to make sure the data are reliable.

• If there are insufficient data 

• it might be appropriate to recommend revision. 

• You should also consider whether there is any in-built bias not nullified by the control experiments.

Best Practices 

During these checks you should keep in mind best practices:

• Standard guidelines were followed 

• The health and safety of all participants in the study was not compromised

• Ethical standards were maintained.

• If the research fails to reach relevant best practice standards, it's usual to recommend rejection.

• What's more, you don't then need to read any further.

3. Results and Discussion

This section should tell a coherent story 

• What happened? 
  What was discovered or confirmed?
• Certain patterns of good reporting need to be followed by the author.
• They should start by describing in simple terms what the data show
• They should make reference to statistical analyses, such as significance or goodness of fit.
• Once described, they should evaluate the trends observed and explain the significance of the results to wider understanding. 
• This can only be done by referencing published research.
• The outcome should be a critical analysis of the data collected.
• Discussion should always, at some point, gather all the information together into a single whole. 

Authors should describe and discuss the overall findings included logically, that;

• If there are gaps or inconsistencies in the manuscript;
• They should address these inconsistencies.
• They should suggest ways future research might confirm the findings.
•  Further the research can be taken forward by other researchers.

4. Conclusions

This section is usually no more than a few paragraphs and may be presented as part of the results and discussion, or in a separate section. 

• The conclusions should reflect upon the aims - whether they were achieved or not
• No surprise if the results indicate just like the aims and objectives. 
• If the conclusions are not evidence-based, it's appropriate to ask for them to be re-written with evidences.

5. Information Gathered: Images, Graphs and Data Tables

If you find yourself looking at a piece of information from which you cannot discern a story, then 

• You should ask for improvements in presentation.

• This could be an issue with 

• titles, 

• labels, 

• statistical notation or 

• image quality

Where information is clear, you should check that:

• The results seem plausible, in case there is an error in data gathering.
• There are sufficient data. For example, in studies carried out over time are there sufficient data points to support the trends described by the author?
• The trends you can see support the paper's discussion and conclusions
• You should also check whether images have been edited or manipulated to emphasize the story they tell. 
• This may be appropriate but only if authors report on how the image has been edited. 
• Where you feel that an image has been edited or manipulated without explanation, you should highlight this in a confidential comment to the editor in your report.

6. List of References

You will need to check referencing for 

• accuracy, 
• adequacy and 
• balance.

Accuracy

Where a cited article is central to the author's argument, then 

• You should check the accuracy.
•  The format of the reference
• Keep in mind different subject areas may use citations differently.
• Otherwise, it's the editor’s role to exhaustively check the reference section for accuracy and format.

Adequacy

You should consider 

• If the referencing is adequate.
  
• Are there published studies that show similar or dissimilar trends that should be discussed?
• Are important parts of the argument poorly supported?
• If a manuscript only uses half the citations typical in its field, this may be an indicator that referencing should be improved 
• Don't be guided solely by quantity.
• You should look quality references.
• Over and above, references should be 

• • relevant, 

  • recent and 

  • readily retrievable, 

  • as far as practicable.

Balance

Check for a well-balanced list of references that is:

• Helpful to the reader
  Fair to competing authors
  Not over-reliant on self-citation
• You should be able to evaluate whether the article meets the criteria for balanced referencing without looking up every reference.
• Gives due recognition to the initial discoveries and related work that led to the work under assessment.

7. Plagiarism

By now you will have a deep understanding of the paper's content - and you may have some concerns about plagiarism.

Although plagiarism is not a criminal or civil offense, plagiarism is illegal if it infringes an author's intellectual property rights, including copyright or trademark. 

For example, the owner of a copyright can sue a plagiarizer in federal court for copyright violation.

References

Schmitz, J. (2014). Peer Review. In Technische Informationsbibliothek (TIB) (Hrsg.), CoScience – gemeinsam forschen und publizieren mit dem Netz. Hannover, Technische Informationsbibliothek. (German only)

Wilson, J. (2017). PEER REVIEW. The Nuts and Bolts: A Guide for Early Career Researchers. London, Sense about Science. (3. ed.)

Wagner, E. (2006). Ethics: What is it for? Nature.com Blogs, 14. Juni 2006. (accessed 05/12/2022)

Anderson, K. (2014). Your Question of the Day – What is „Peer Review“? The Scholarly Kitchen, 24. Juli 2014. (accessed 05/12/2022)

Harnad, S. (2014). Crowd-Sourced Peer Review: Substitute or supplement fort he current outdated system? LSE – The Impact of Science Blog, 21. August 2014. (accessed 05/12/2022)

Smith, K. L. (2014) Just the Tip of the Iceberg | Peer to Peer Review. Library Journal, 13. März 2014. (accessed 19/12/2022)

Ross-Hellauer, T. (2017). What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research, 6(588).

Table 1: Most common types of research misconduct. In Mousavi, T. & Abdollahi, M. (2020). A review of the current concerns about misconduct in medical sciences publications and consequences. DARU Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 28, 359–369.