How to Write a Paper

List of Contributors, vii Preface to the Fifth Edition, x Preface to the Fourth Edition, xi Chapter 1 Structure of a scientific paper, 1 George M. Hall Chapter 2 Introduction, 6 Richard Smith Chapter 3 Methods, 16 Gordon B. Drummond Chapter 4 Results, 22 Charles W. Hogue Chapter 5 Discussion, 29 George M. Hall Chapter 6 Titles, abstracts and authors, 33 Kevin W. Eva Chapter 7 Who should be an author?, 42 Richard Horton Chapter 8 References, 47 Simon Howell and Liz Neilly Chapter 9 Electronic submissions, 57 Michael Willis Chapter 10 Open access, 64 Mark Ware Chapter 11 How to write a letter, 71 Michael Doherty Chapter 12 How to prepare an abstract for a scientific meeting, 78 Robert N. Allan Chapter 13 How to write a case report, 83 Martin Neil Rossor Chapter 14 How to write a review, 89 Paul Glasziou Chapter 15 How to write a book review, 98 Mark W. Davies and Luke A. Jardine Chapter 16 The role of the manuscript assessor, 102 Domhnall MacAuley Chapter 17 The role of the editor, 115 Jennifer M. Hunter Chapter 18 What a publisher does, 124 Gavin Sharrock and Elizabeth Whelan Chapter 19 Style: what it is and why it matters, 133 Sharon Leng Chapter 20 Ethics of publication, 141 Chris Graf and Elissa Wilson Index, 151

[1]  T O Jefferson,et al.  Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ , 1996, BMJ.

[2]  J. Mercer,et al.  Research Misconduct , 2019, Ethics in Psychological Research: A Practical Guide for the Student Scientist.

[3]  M. Gardner,et al.  More informative abstracts revisited. , 1990, The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association.

[4]  R. Smith,et al.  Preventing perinatal infections , 1997, BMJ.

[5]  R Smith,et al.  Peer review: reform or revolution? , 1997, BMJ.

[6]  T C Chalmers,et al.  Cumulative meta-analysis of therapeutic trials for myocardial infarction. , 1992, The New England journal of medicine.

[7]  I. Olkin,et al.  Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement , 1999, The Lancet.

[8]  Lisa A. Bero,et al.  The electronic future: What might an online scientific paper look like in five years' time?: Length—and other strengths , 1997 .

[9]  R Smith,et al.  Authorship: time for a paradigm shift? , 1997, BMJ.

[10]  J. Kaufman.  Authors vs contributors: accuracy, accountability, and responsibility. , 1998, JAMA.

[11]  F. Godlee,et al.  Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial. , 1998, JAMA.

[12]  E Marshall,et al.  Fraud Strikes Top Genome Lab , 1996, Science.

[13]  R Bhopal,et al.  The vexed question of authorship: views of researchers in a British medical faculty , 1997, BMJ.

[14]  R. Horton,et al.  UK's failure to act on research misconduct , 2000, The Lancet.

[15]  M. Shapiro,et al.  The contributions of authors to multiauthored biomedical research papers. , 1994, JAMA.

[16]  Richard Horton,et al.  The signature of responsibility , 1997, The Lancet.

[17]  S. Eastwood,et al.  Ethical issues in biomedical research: Perceptions and practices of postdoctoral research fellows responding to a survey , 1996, Science and engineering ethics.

[18]  D. Simon,et al.  Signing up for authorship , 1996, The Lancet.

[19]  Lois Ann Colaianni,et al.  UNIFORM REQUIREMENTS FOR MANUSCRIPTS SUBMITTED TO BIOMEDICAL JOURNALS , 2000 .

[20]  M. Doherty.  The misconduct of redundant publication. , 1996, Annals of the rheumatic diseases.

[21]  S Lock,et al.  Lessons from the Pearce affair: handling scientific fraud , 1995, BMJ.

[22]  M. Farthing.  Dealing with research misconduct in the United Kingdom. An editor's response to fraudsters. , 1998, BMJ.

[23]  Richard Horton,et al.  The unmasked carnival of science , 1998, The Lancet.

[24]  D. Rennie,et al.  When authorship fails. A proposal to make contributors accountable. , 1997, JAMA.

[25]  Maeve O'Connor,et al.  Writing Successfully in Science , 1992 .

[26]  A. Yankauer,et al.  Who are the peer reviewers and how much do they review? , 1990, JAMA.

[27]  R. Hoekelman.  Medical writing: a prescription for clarity , 2006, Journal of Urban Health.

[28]  R Smith,et al.  Opening up BMJ peer review , 1999, BMJ.

[29]  Richard Smith,et al.  Authorship is dying: long live contributorship , 1997, BMJ.

[30]  M. Nylenna,et al.  Handling of scientific dishonesty in the Nordic countries , 1999, The Lancet.

[31]  Games people play with authors' names , 1997, Nature.

[32]  R Smith,et al.  Quality improvement reports: a new kind of article , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[33]  C. Mulrow.  The medical review article: state of the science. , 1987, Annals of internal medicine.

[34]  D. Rennie,et al.  Authorship! Authorship! Guests, ghosts, grafters, and the two-sided coin. , 1994, JAMA.

[35]  S. Goldbeck-Wood,et al.  What makes a good reviewer of manuscripts? , 1998, BMJ.

[36]  G. Smith.  Impact factors in anaesthesia journals. , 1996, British journal of anaesthesia.

[37]  Robert Cailliau,et al.  A little history of the World Wide Web , 1995 .

[38]  N. Fotion,et al.  Authorship and other credits. , 1984, Annals of internal medicine.