1.1E: Publishing Scientific Work - Biology

1.1E: Publishing Scientific Work - Biology

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Publication of scientific research in a peer-reviewed journal allows other scientists access to the research.

Learning Objectives

  • Describe the role played by peer-reviewed scientific articles

Key Points

  • The body of scientific knowledge is recorded in peer-reviewed science journals which allow other scientists to determine what has been done previously and where their own research fits in the larger field of study.
  • A scientific article generally follows the steps of the scientific method: introduction (background, observations, question), materials and methods (hypothesis and experimental plan), results (analysis of collected data), and discussion (conclusions drawn from analysis).
  • Peer reviewers are other researchers in that field of study who carefully dissect, analyze, and critique a research article submitted for publication.
  • Review articles (summaries and commentaries on prior research in a field of study) also go through the peer-review process.

Key Terms

  • peer review: The scholarly process whereby manuscripts intended to be published in an academic journal are reviewed by independent researchers to evaluate the contribution, importance, and accuracy of the manuscript’s contents.

Reporting Scientific Work

Scientists must share their findings in order for other researchers to expand and build upon their discoveries. Collaboration with other scientists—when planning, conducting, and analyzing results—are all important for scientific research. For this reason, a major aspect of a scientist’s work is communicating with peers and disseminating results to peers. Scientists can share results by presenting them at a scientific meeting or conference, but this approach can reach only the select few who are present. Instead, most scientists present their results in peer-reviewed manuscripts that are published in scientific journals. Peer-reviewed manuscripts are scientific papers that are reviewed by a scientist’s colleagues or peers. These colleagues are qualified individuals, often experts in the same research area, who judge whether or not the scientist’s work is suitable for publication. The process of peer review helps to ensure that the research described in a scientific paper or grant proposal is original, significant, logical, and thorough. Grant proposals, which are requests for research funding, are also subject to peer review. Scientists publish their work so other scientists can reproduce their experiments under similar or different conditions to expand on the findings. The experimental results must be consistent with the findings of other scientists.

A scientific paper is very different from creative writing. Although creativity is required to design experiments, there are fixed guidelines when it comes to presenting scientific results. Scientific writing must be brief, concise, and accurate. It needs to be succinct but detailed-enough to allow peers to reproduce the experiments.

The scientific paper consists of several specific sections: introduction, materials and methods, results, and discussion. This structure is sometimes called the “IMRaD” format. There are usually acknowledgment and reference sections, as well as an abstract (a concise summary) at the beginning of the paper. There might be additional sections depending on the type of paper and the journal where it will be published; for example, some review papers require an outline.

The introduction starts with brief, but broad, background information about what is known in the field. A good introduction also gives the rationale and justification for the work. The introduction refers to the published scientific work of others and, therefore, requires citations following the style of the journal. Using the work or ideas of others without proper citation is considered plagiarism.

The materials and methods section includes a complete and accurate description of the substances and the techniques used by the researchers to gather data. The description should be thorough, yet concise, while providing enough information to allow another researcher to repeat the experiment and obtain similar results. This section will also include information on how measurements were made and what types of calculations and statistical analyses were used to examine raw data. Although the materials and methods section gives an accurate description of the experiments, it does not discuss them.

Journals may require separate results and discussion sections, or it may combine them in one section. If the journal does not allow the combination of both sections, the results section simply narrates the findings without any further interpretation. The results are presented by means of tables or graphs, but no duplicate information should be presented. In the discussion section, the researcher will interpret the results, describe how variables may be related, and attempt to explain the observations. It is indispensable to conduct an extensive literature search to put the results in the context of previously-published scientific research. Therefore, proper citations are included in this section as well.

Finally, the conclusion section summarizes the importance of the experimental findings. While the scientific paper almost certainly answered one or more scientific questions that were stated, any good research should lead to more questions. A well-written scientific paper leaves doors open for the researcher and others to continue and expand on the findings.

Review articles do not follow the IMRAD format because they do not present original scientific findings or primary literature. Instead, they summarize and comment on findings that were published as primary literature. They typically include extensive reference sections.

1.1E: Publishing Scientific Work - Biology

"Chasing the Ghost nicely describes how successful the derring-do attitude of individual researchers can be. Reines variously comes across as endearing, admirable and irritating. He could alarm his team by tugging on cables to test electronics as he whistled his way through a lab, and was quick to over-interpret results. But he was a hands-off, respectful lab chief who addressed his team with old-fashioned formality as 'Mr' (they seem to have all been men) — even as he ignored their rights to holidays. Those interviewed all tell how they fell under his spell, and worked hard to please him. One anecdote has him on one knee, singing an aria at a party. Unlike his neutrinos, it seems, Reines was always an unmistakable presence."

"The scientific sections would work very well as reference or study material. For those who have an interest in the deeper scientific aspects of Karplus' work, this book is definitely worth a perusal."

"Had this wonderful book been available to me when I was an undergraduate student, I may never have switched my major from Physics to Math to Cognitive Science. Among the book's other contributions, it contains a highly readable and accurate summary of what research on learning has to say about how students learn, versus how they — and their teachers — may think they learn."

"The presentations gathered in this book offer plenty of ideas and advice for anyone seeking to start a program or affiliate with an existing one. In general, the authors do not compare their programs to those described in other chapters, but readers of the whole volume will identify significant commonalties across the various audiences, processes, obstacles, and outcomes described.
Summing up: Recommended. All readers."