ReviewJournal of human reproductive sciences
Manuscript Writing: An Editorial Perspective.
Review in Journal of human reproductive sciences. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Scientific writing is an essential skill for clinicians and researchers to disseminate their research findings effectively. This narrative review discusses key aspects, including the formulation of an appropriate research question, the selection of suitable study designs, the identification of the right journal for submission and the structuring of manuscripts according to the IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results And Discussion) format. It highlights the importance of reporting guidelines, precise and compelling scientific writing, appropriate sample size calculation, selection of meaningful outcome measures in reproductive medicine and drafting balanced conclusions. This review also provides a concise overview of international recommendations and best practices for manuscript preparation to ensure clarity, transparency, reproducibility and completeness in scientific reporting. Ethical research practices, including avoidance of plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, inappropriate use of artificial intelligence and issues related to authorship and disclosure of competing interests, are also addressed. In addition, common reasons for manuscript rejection are outlined to help researchers improve the quality and impact of their submissions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.