Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35510182›Full record

ReviewPatterns (New York, N.Y.)2022

A guide to backward paper writing for the data sciences.

Jon Zelner, Kelly Broen, Ella August

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Patterns (New York, N.Y.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jon ZelnerDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.
Kelly BroenDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.
Ella AugustDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this perspective, we outline a set of best practices for the planning, writing, and revision of scientific papers and other forms of professional communication in the data sciences. We propose a backward approach that begins with clearly identifying the scientific and professional goals motivating the work, followed by a purposeful mapping from those goals to each section of a paper. This approach is motivated by the conviction that manuscript writing can be more effective, efficient, creative, and even enjoyable-particularly for early-career researchers-when the overarching goals of the paper and its individual components are clearly mapped out.

Identifiers

PMID35510182
PMCPMC9058833

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.