PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Manuscripts as Topic”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 325 records · Page 18Linked to original sources
PubMed2000

Manuscript peer review: a helpful checklist for students and novice referees.

The ability to contribute consistent, fundamentally sound critiques is an essential element of the scientific peer review process and an important professional skill for investigators. Despite its importance, many students and junior scientists do not have an adequate working knowledge of how to effectively critique research manuscripts. Part of the problem, in our view, is that novice referees often lack a comprehensive understanding of the basic issues that should be considered in evaluating scientific articles. Specifically, they tend to overemphasize certain limitations (usually methodological), while missing other key points related to the scientific method that should be weighed much more heavily. In our journal club and graduate courses we have been using a "checklist" to help graduate students and postdoctoral fellows critically analyze original research papers. In this article we present these guidelines in the hope that they will serve as a helpful resource for students and other novice reviewers when critiquing scientific manuscripts.

Manuscripts as Topic↗
PubMed2006

Writing good abstracts.

INTRODUCTION: Writing an abstract means to extract and summarize (AB - absolutely, STR - straightforward, ACT - actual data presentation and interpretation). Thousands of abstracts are submitted to stroke conferences each year. The following suggestions may improve the chances of your work being selected for presentation, and to communicate results in the most efficient and unambiguous way. TITLE AND STRUCTURE: Make the title dynamic and informative, rather than descriptive. Structure the abstract following the IMRaD (Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion) principle for your future original paper where background would become Introduction and conclusions would enter Discussion. Select the appropriate category for submission carefully. This determines which experts grade the abstract and the session where your competitors represent their work. If selected appropriately, your abstract is more likely to be graded by peers with similar interests and familiarity with your work or field. Methods should describe the study design and tools of data acquisition shortly, not data. RESULTS: Provide data that answer the research question. Describe most important data with numbers and statistics. Make your point with data, not speculations and opinions. Abbreviations should be avoided and only be used after they have been spelled out or defined. Common mistakes include failure to state the hypothesis, rationale for the study, sample size and conclusions. Highlight the novelty of your work by carefully chosen straightforward wording. CONCLUSIONS: Conclusions have to be based on the present study findings. Make sure your abstract is clear, concise and follows all rules. Show your draft to colleagues for critique, and if you are not a native English speaker show it to a person who can improve/correct your text. Remember that accepted abstracts of completed original research should be followed by published original papers - if this is not intended or fails, it may indicate an impaired ability to succeed in scientific writing and an academic career.

Abbreviations as Topic↗
PubMed1992

[Not Available].

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Anatomy↗
PubMed2002

A company of women and men: men's recollections of childbirth in medieval England.

The events that took place in medieval English birthing chambers were witnessed and assisted by a company of women. Although these events may have been isolated, they did not exist in isolation. Rather, they interacted in complex ways with the lives and activities of the men in the manor hall. This article examines those interactions as they are evidenced in proof-of-age inquests, legal documents that record the recollections of husbands, fathers, and male relatives and neighbors regarding the events surrounding the birth of an heir to crown land. It concludes that even though men rarely entered the birthing chamber, their dynastic interests and social politics routinely penetrated its walls, blurring the boundary between private and public spheres, female and male space.

England↗