Why this, why now, why me

When the reviewers say “it’s unclear which is the relevance this study may have"...😖

When I first started doing proper research, everybody in the lab I worked in wanted to cure cancer. At least, that’s what all their papers said… Why?

  • Set the scene

Cancer is one of the main causes of death worldwide, accounting for nearly 10 million deaths in 2020, or nearly one in six deaths (WHO). 

👆 This is what is called setting the scene.

A claim comprised by one or two sentences, often backed up by one or more citations, that highlights the relevance and timeliness of the research. 🕕

It should be within the 1st paragraph of your introduction, and accurately reflect what the paper is about.

Here are some examples of this I wrote myself:

Most of us at least know someone that died, survived, or is still struggling with cancer, so curing cancer would make a massive difference in everybody’s lives.

But not all research is obviously relevant.


  • Background and research gap

In the broad field of study that you research, the contribution you can make with the findings in your study will add to the mounting evidence.

Science is iterative. It builds on what was discovered before. It is important to place your study in the context of what has already been done, to identify what is still missing. 👀

If the 1st paragraph described the field of research, the 2nd paragraph tells the specific story of what is known, and what remains to be discovered.

 

  •  Objectives

This is like prompting for ChatGPT. 😊 

At this point, your readers should be hooked and ready to immerse themselves in the story you are about to tell them.💡So, don’t forget to introduce the study you'll be describing.💡

Adverbs and linking words are your best friends. You will describe how you conducted your research in the next section. So, start your 3rd paragraph with an expression such as:

  • Here we show…

  • Therefore, our main goal was…

  • We tested the hypothesis that…

  • Using…, we assessed whether… 

Yes, even reviewers are human, and presenting an engaging story in an otherwise technical and matter-of-fact piece of literature will help you get them on board with what you're trying to say. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Leave a comment!

How to spot fake reviewers: a beginner's guide

Image
For those unfamiliar with or new to academic publishing, peer review manipulation is hard to spot. This is mainly because most peer review reports are still confidential documents that stay buried deep in academic journal's editorial offices. As long as this continues to be the default, recognising good and bad peer reviews is difficult enough... now we have to worry about fake peer review as well?! 😒 Well, yes. Yes, we do. The peer review process in academic publishing is unlike any other. The style and content of a manuscript are criticized, as are the thought processes that birthed it. Everything from word choice to significance of the research focus is under scrutiny. In traditional peer review formats, reviewers recommend that manuscripts be accepted or rejected. This much power may make some less scrupulous people guiddy... or yearning to rig the system. The refereeing work that is supposed to be one of the garantors of research integrity is itself highly susceptible to ma
Read more

Auditing published papers (part I)

Image
After they have been published, I audit research papers.  Image by @freepik Why? How does that work? 😕 A new revised version of The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECCRI) has been produced by Allea , and recognised by the European Commission, one of the world's largest research funding bodies. This revision focuses on a heightened awareness of issues pertaining to Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion ( EDI ), but also the General Data Protection Regulation ( GDPR ), and even Open Science . I know.. too much legal speak, too many acronyms... 😬 So, let me sum it up for you. 🔊 All institutions, organizations, and individuals that engage in or interact with research must always abide by the principles of: Honesty Respect   Reliability   Accountability  Simple enough, right? Humm.. I analyse papers that have been flagged as "of concern". 😟 The issues I most commonly see have to do with lack of funding or data availability statements, inappropriate citati
Read more

IMHO: why open science should adopt double anonymous peer review

Image
Let's get opinionated... Peer review is still the cornerstone of quality research. This has been repeated by so many during #PeerReviewWeek2023 , it almost lost its meaning to me. I participated in this conversation wholeheartedly, as a freelancer with a variety of roles, from content review to integrity audits.  I’m no longer in academia, but I did my stint there: it’s hard to imagine that many PhD students and postdocs get excited by performing their first peer review. It often results from an invitation trickle-down and, although it can be regarded as a learning opportunity, peer review is hard, time-consuming, unpaid, and often unrecognized work. Open participation is often regarded by researchers as the fairer, more constructive and productive process, leading to improvement in the quality of the finished version of the works. This is the iterative version of having a preprint published in a stable server, with access to all versions of the work, and “comments on”.   The
Read more