are small zooplankton found in freshwater inland lakes and are thought to switch their mode of reproduction from asexual to sexual in response to extreme temperatures (Mitchell 1999). Lakes containing have an average summer surface temperature of 20°C (Harper 1995) but may increase by more than 15% when expose to warm water effluent from power plants, paper mills, and chemical industry (Baker et al. 2000). Could an increase in lake temperature caused by industrial thermal pollution affect the survivorship and reproduction of ?
The sex of is mediated by the environment rather than genetics. Under optimal environmental conditions, populations consist of asexually reproducing females. When the environment shifts may be queued to reproduce sexually resulting in the production of male offspring and females carrying haploid eggs in sacs called ephippia (Mitchell 1999).
The purpose of this laboratory study is to examine the effects of increased water temperature on survivorship and reproduction. This study will help us characterize the magnitude of environmental change required to induce the onset of the sexual life cycle in . Because are known to be a sensitive environmental indicator species (Baker et al. 2000) and share similar structural and physiological features with many aquatic species, they serve as a good model for examining the effects of increasing water temperature on reproduction in a variety of aquatic invertebrates.
We hypothesized that populations reared in water temperatures ranging from 24-26 °C would have lower survivorship, higher male/female ratio among the offspring, and more female offspring carrying ephippia as compared with grown in water temperatures of 20-22°C. To test this hypothesis we reared populations in tanks containing water at either 24 +/- 2°C or 20 +/- 2°C. Over 10 days, we monitored survivorship, determined the sex of the offspring, and counted the number of female offspring containing ephippia.
Comments:
Background information
· Opening paragraph provides good focus immediately. The study organism, gender switching response, and temperature influence are mentioned in the first sentence. Although it does a good job documenting average lake water temperature and changes due to industrial run-off, it fails to make an argument that the 15% increase in lake temperature could be considered “extreme” temperature change.
· The study question is nicely embedded within relevant, well-cited background information. Alternatively, it could be stated as the first sentence in the introduction, or after all background information has been discussed before the hypothesis.
Rationale
· Good. Well-defined purpose for study; to examine the degree of environmental change necessary to induce the Daphnia sexual life
cycle.
How will introductions be evaluated? The following is part of the rubric we will be using to evaluate your papers.
0 = inadequate (C, D or F) | 1 = adequate (BC) | 2 = good (B) | 3 = very good (AB) | 4 = excellent (A) | |
Introduction BIG PICTURE: Did the Intro convey why experiment was performed and what it was designed to test?
| Introduction provides little to no relevant information. (This often results in a hypothesis that “comes out of nowhere.”) | Many key components are very weak or missing; those stated are unclear and/or are not stated concisely. Weak/missing components make it difficult to follow the rest of the paper. e.g., background information is not focused on a specific question and minimal biological rationale is presented such that hypothesis isn’t entirely logical
| Covers most key components but could be done much more logically, clearly, and/or concisely. e.g., biological rationale not fully developed but still supports hypothesis. Remaining components are done reasonably well, though there is still room for improvement. | Concisely & clearly covers all but one key component (w/ exception of rationale; see left) clearly covers all key components but could be a little more concise and/or clear. e.g., has done a reasonably nice job with the Intro but fails to state the approach OR has done a nice job with Intro but has also included some irrelevant background information
| Clearly, concisely, & logically presents all key components: relevant & correctly cited background information, question, biological rationale, hypothesis, approach. |
Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.
A clear format will ensure that your research paper is understood by your readers. Follow:
1. Context — your introduction
2. Content — your results
3. Conclusion — your discussion
Plan your paper carefully and decide where each point will sit within the framework before you begin writing.
Collection: Careers toolkit
Scientific writing should always aim to be A, B and C: Accurate, Brief, and Clear. Never choose a long word when a short one will do. Use simple language to communicate your results. Always aim to distill your message down into the simplest sentence possible.
A carefully conceived title will communicate the single core message of your research paper. It should be D, E, F: Declarative, Engaging and Focused.
Add a sentence or two at the end of your concluding statement that sets out your plans for further research. What is next for you or others working in your field?
See additional information .
doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-01362-9
How to get published in high impact journals
So you’re writing a paper
Writing for a Nature journal
The grassroots organizations continuing the fight for Ukrainian science
Career Feature 11 SEP 24
How a struggling biotech company became a university ‘spin-in’
Career Q&A 10 SEP 24
The human costs of the research-assessment culture
Career Feature 09 SEP 24
How can I publish open access when I can’t afford the fees?
Career Feature 02 SEP 24
Tales of a migratory marine biologist
Career Feature 28 AUG 24
Nail your tech-industry interviews with these six techniques
Career Column 28 AUG 24
Memphis, Tennessee
St. Jude Children's Research Hospital (St. Jude)
Clinical research associate rn i, lead researcher or scientist - flow cytometry (host-microbe interactions), postdoctoral research associate - computational biology.
Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.
Many scientific articles include the following elements:
I. Abstract: The abstract should briefly summarize the contents of your article. Be sure to include a quick overview of the focus, results and conclusion of your study.
II. Introduction: The introduction should include any relevant background information and articulate the idea that is being investigated. Why is this study unique? If others have performed research on the topic, include a literature review.
III. Methods and Materials: The methods and materials section should provide information on how the study was conducted and what materials were included. Other researchers should be able to reproduce your study based on the information found in this section.
IV. Results: The results sections includes the data produced by your study. It should reflect an unbiased account of the study's findings.
V. Discussion and Conclusion: The discussion section provides information on what researches felt was significant and analyzes the data. You may also want to provide final thoughts and ideas for further research in the conclusion section.
For more information, see How to Read a Scientific Paper.
When you write about scientific topics to specialists in a particular scientific field, we call that scientific writing. (When you write to non-specialists about scientific topics, we call that science writing.)
The scientific paper has developed over the past three centuries into a tool to communicate the results of scientific inquiry. The main audience for scientific papers is extremely specialized. The purpose of these papers is twofold: to present information so that it is easy to retrieve, and to present enough information that the reader can duplicate the scientific study. A standard format with six main part helps readers to find expected information and analysis:
There are many ways to approach the writing of a scientific paper, and no one way is right. Many people, however, find that drafting chunks in this order works best: Results, Discussion, Introduction, Materials & Methods, Abstract, and, finally, Title.
The title should be very limited and specific. Really, it should be a pithy summary of the article's main focus.
This is a summary of your article. Generally between 50-100 words, it should state the goals, results, and the main conclusions of your study. You should list the parameters of your study (when and where was it conducted, if applicable; your sample size; the specific species, proteins, genes, etc., studied). Think of the process of writing the abstract as taking one or two sentences from each of your sections (an introductory sentence, a sentence stating the specific question addressed, a sentence listing your main techniques or procedures, two or three sentences describing your results, and one sentence describing your main conclusion).
Hypertension, diabetes and hyperlipidemia are risk factors for life-threatening complications such as end-stage renal disease, coronary artery disease and stroke. Why some patients develop complications is unclear, but only susceptibility genes may be involved. To test this notion, we studied crosses involving the fawn-hooded rat, an animal model of hypertension that develops chronic renal failure. Here, we report the localization of two genes, Rf-1 and Rf-2 , responsible for about half of the genetic variation in key indices of renal impairment. In addition, we localize a gene, Bpfh-1 , responsible for about 26% of the genetic variation in blood pressure. Rf-1 strongly affects the risk of renal impairment, but has no significant effect on blood pressure. Our results show that susceptibility to a complication of hypertension is under at least partially independent genetic control from susceptibility to hypertension itself.
Brown, Donna M, A.P. Provoost, M.J. Daly, E.S. Lander, & H.J. Jacob. 1996. "Renal disease susceptibility and hypertension are under indpendent genetic control in the faun-hooded rat." Nature Genetics , 12(1):44-51.
We studied survival of 220 calves of radiocollared moose ( Alces alces ) from parturition to the end of July in southcentral Alaska from 1994 to 1997. Prior studies established that predation by brown bears ( Ursus arctos ) was the primary cause of mortality of moose calves in the region. Our objectives were to characterize vulnerability of moose calves to predation as influenced by age, date, snow depths, and previous reproductive success of the mother. We also tested the hypothesis that survival of twin moose calves was independent and identical to that of single calves. Survival of moose calves from parturition through July was 0.27 ± 0.03 SE, and their daily rate of mortality declined at a near constant rate with age in that period. Mean annual survival was 0.22 ± 0.03 SE. Previous winter's snow depths or survival of the mother's previous calf was not related to neonatal survival. Selection for early parturition was evidenced in the 4 years of study by a 6.3% increase in the hazard of death with each daily increase in parturition date. Although there was no significant difference in survival of twin and single moose calves, most twins that died disappeared together during the first 15 days after birth and independently thereafter, suggesting that predators usually killed both when encountered up to that age.
Key words: Alaska, Alces alces , calf survival, moose, Nelchina, parturition synchrony, predation
Testa, J.W., E.F. Becker, & G.R. Lee. 2000. "Temporal patterns in the survival of twin and single moose ( alces alces ) calves in southcentral Alaska." Journal of Mammalogy , 81(1):162-168.
We monitored breeding phenology and population levels of Rana yavapaiensis by use of repeated egg mass censuses and visual encounter surveys at Agua Caliente Canyon near Tucson, Arizona, from 1994 to 1996. Adult counts fluctuated erratically within each year of the study but annual means remained similar. Juvenile counts peaked during the fall recruitment season and fell to near zero by early spring. Rana yavapaiensis deposited eggs in two distinct annual episodes, one in spring (March-May) and a much smaller one in fall (September-October). Larvae from the spring deposition period completed metamorphosis in earlv summer. Over the two years of study, 96.6% of egg masses successfully produced larvae. Egg masses were deposited during periods of predictable, moderate stream flow, but not during seasonal periods when flash flooding or drought were likely to affect eggs or larvae. Breeding phenology of Rana yavapaiensis is particularly well suited for life in desert streams with natural flow regimes which include frequent flash flooding and drought at predictable times. The exotic predators of R. yavapaiensis are less able to cope with fluctuating conditions. Unaltered stream flow regimes that allow natural fluctuations in stream discharge may provide refugia for this declining ranid frog from exotic predators by excluding those exotic species that are unable to cope with brief flash flooding and habitat drying.
Sartorius, Shawn S., and Philip C. Rosen. 2000. "Breeding phenology of the lowland leopard frog ( Rana yavepaiensis )." Southwestern Naturalist , 45(3): 267-273.
The introduction is where you sketch out the background of your study, including why you have investigated the question that you have and how it relates to earlier research that has been done in the field. It may help to think of an introduction as a telescoping focus, where you begin with the broader context and gradually narrow to the specific problem addressed by the report. A typical (and very useful) construction of an introduction proceeds as follows:
"Echimyid rodents of the genus Proechimys (spiny rats) often are the most abundant and widespread lowland forest rodents throughout much of their range in the Neotropics (Eisenberg 1989). Recent studies suggested that these rodents play an important role in forest dynamics through their activities as seed predators and dispersers of seeds (Adler and Kestrell 1998; Asquith et al 1997; Forget 1991; Hoch and Adler 1997)." (Lambert and Adler, p. 70)
"Our laboratory has been involved in the analysis of the HLA class II genes and their association with autoimmune disorders such as insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. As part of this work, the laboratory handles a large number of blood samples. In an effort to minimize the expense and urgency of transportation of frozen or liquid blood samples, we have designed a protocol that will preserve the integrity of lymphocyte DNA and enable the transport and storage of samples at ambient temperatures." (Torrance, MacLeod & Hache, p. 64)
"Despite the ubiquity and abundance of P. semispinosus , only two previous studies have assessed habitat use, with both showing a generalized habitat use. [brief summary of these studies]." (Lambert and Adler, p. 70)
"Although very good results have been obtained using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification of DNA extracted from dried blood spots on filter paper (1,4,5,8,9), this preservation method yields limited amounts of DNA and is susceptible to contamination." (Torrance, MacLeod & Hache, p. 64)
"No attempt has been made to quantitatively describe microhabitat characteristics with which this species may be associated. Thus, specific structural features of secondary forests that may promote abundance of spiny rats remains unknown. Such information is essential to understand the role of spiny rats in Neotropical forests, particularly with regard to forest regeneration via interactions with seeds." (Lambert and Adler, p. 71)
"As an alternative, we have been investigating the use of lyophilization ("freeze-drying") of whole blood as a method to preserve sufficient amounts of genomic DNA to perform PCR and Southern Blot analysis." (Torrance, MacLeod & Hache, p. 64)
"We present an analysis of microhabitat use by P. semispinosus in tropical moist forests in central Panama." (Lambert and Adler, p. 71)
"In this report, we summarize our analysis of genomic DNA extracted from lyophilized whole blood." (Torrance, MacLeod & Hache, p. 64)
In this section you describe how you performed your study. You need to provide enough information here for the reader to duplicate your experiment. However, be reasonable about who the reader is. Assume that he or she is someone familiar with the basic practices of your field.
It's helpful to both writer and reader to organize this section chronologically: that is, describe each procedure in the order it was performed. For example, DNA-extraction, purification, amplification, assay, detection. Or, study area, study population, sampling technique, variables studied, analysis method.
Include in this section:
Chromosomal DNA was denatured for the first cycle by incubating the slides in 70% deionized formamide; 2x standard saline citrate (SSC) at 70ºC for 2 min, followed by 70% ethanol at -20ºC and then 90% and 100% ethanol at room temperature, followed by air drying. (Rouwendal et al ., p. 79)
We considered seeds left in the petri dish to be unharvested and those scattered singly on the surface of a tile to be scattered and also unharvested. We considered seeds in cheek pouches to be harvested but not cached, those stored in the nestbox to be larderhoarded, and those buried in caching sites within the arena to be scatterhoarded. (Krupa and Geluso, p. 99)
Frogs were monitored using visual encounter transects (Crump and Scott, 1994). (Sartorius and Rosen, p. 269)
We used Wilcox rank-sum tests for all comparisons of pre-experimental scores and for all comparisons of hue, saturation, and brightness scores between various groups of birds ... All P -values are two-tailed unless otherwise noted. (Brawner et al ., p. 955)
This section presents the facts--what was found in the course of this investigation. Detailed data--measurements, counts, percentages, patterns--usually appear in tables, figures, and graphs, and the text of the section draws attention to the key data and relationships among data. Three rules of thumb will help you with this section:
Remember to use table and figures effectively. But don't expect these to stand alone.
Some examples of well-organized and easy-to-follow results:
Notice how the second sample points out what is important in the accompanying figure. It makes us aware of relationships that we may not have noticed quickly otherwise and that will be important to the discussion.
A similar test result is obtained with a primer derived from the human ß-satellite... This primer (AGTGCAGAGATATGTCACAATG-CCCC: Oligo 435) labels 6 sites in the PRINS reaction: the chromosomes 1, one pair of acrocentrics and, more weakly, the chromosomes 9 (Fig. 2a). After 10 cycles of PCR-IS, the number of sites labeled has doubled (Fig. 2b); after 20 cycles, the number of sites labeled is the same but the signals are stronger (Fig. 2c) (Rouwendal et al ., July 93:80).
Related Information: Use Tables and Figures Effectively
Do not repeat all of the information in the text that appears in a table, but do summarize it. For example, if you present a table of temperature measurements taken at various times, describe the general pattern of temperature change and refer to the table.
"The temperature of the solution increased rapidly at first, going from 50º to 80º in the first three minutes (Table 1)."
You don't want to list every single measurement in the text ("After one minute, the temperature had risen to 55º. After two minutes, it had risen to 58º," etc.). There is no hard and fast rule about when to report all measurements in the text and when to put the measurements in a table and refer to them, but use your common sense. Remember that readers have all that data in the accompanying tables and figures, so your task in this section is to highlight key data, changes, or relationships.
In this section you discuss your results. What aspect you choose to focus on depends on your results and on the main questions addressed by them. For example, if you were testing a new technique, you will want to discuss how useful this technique is: how well did it work, what are the benefits and drawbacks, etc. If you are presenting data that appear to refute or support earlier research, you will want to analyze both your own data and the earlier data--what conditions are different? how much difference is due to a change in the study design, and how much to a new property in the study subject? You may discuss the implication of your research--particularly if it has a direct bearing on a practical issue, such as conservation or public health.
This section centers on speculation . However, this does not free you to present wild and haphazard guesses. Focus your discussion around a particular question or hypothesis. Use subheadings to organize your thoughts, if necessary.
This section depends on a logical organization so readers can see the connection between your study question and your results. One typical approach is to make a list of all the ideas that you will discuss and to work out the logical relationships between them--what idea is most important? or, what point is most clearly made by your data? what ideas are subordinate to the main idea? what are the connections between ideas?
Eight tips will help you match your style for most scientific publications.
The following example needs more precise information. Look at the original and revised paragraphs to see how revising with these guidelines in mind can make the text clearer and more informative:
Before: Each male sang a definite number of songs while singing. They start with a whistle and then go from there. Each new song is always different, but made up an overall repertoire that was completed before starting over again. In 16 cases (84%), no new songs were sung after the first 20, even though we counted about 44 songs for each bird.
After: Each male used a discrete number of song types in his singing. Each song began with an introductory whistle, followed by a distinctive, complex series of fluty warbles (Fig. 1). Successive songs were always different, and five of the 19 males presented their entire song repertoire before repeating any of their song types (i.e., the first IO recorded songs revealed the entire repertoire of 10 song types). Each song type recurred in long sequences of singing, so that we could be confident that we had recorded the entire repertoire of commonly used songs by each male. For 16 of the 19 males, no new song types were encountered after the first 20 songs, even though we analyzed and average of 44 songs/male (range 30-59).
In this set of examples, even a few changes in wording result in a more precise second version. Look at the original and revised paragraphs to see how revising with these guidelines in mind can make the text clearer and more informative:
Before: The study area was on Mt. Cain and Maquilla Peak in British Columbia, Canada. The study area is about 12,000 ha of coastal montane forest. The area is both managed and unmanaged and ranges from 600-1650m. The most common trees present are mountain hemlock ( Tsuga mertensiana ), western hemlock ( Tsuga heterophylla ), yellow cedar ( Chamaecyparis nootkatensis ), and amabilis fir ( Abies amabilis ).
After: The study took place on Mt. Cain and Maquilla Peak (50'1 3'N, 126'1 8'W), Vancouver Island, British Columbia. The study area encompassed 11,800 ha of coastal montane forest. The landscape consisted of managed and unmanaged stands of coastal montane forest, 600-1650 m in elevation. The dominant tree species included mountain hemlock ( Tsuga mertensiana ), western hemlock ( Tsuga heterophylla ), yellow cedar ( Chamaecyparis nootkatensis ), and amabilis fir ( Abies amabilis ).
Although you will want to consider more detailed stylistic revisions as you become more comfortable with scientific writing, two tips can get you started:
First, the verb should follow the subject as soon as possible.
Really Hard to Read : "The smallest of the URF's (URFA6L), a 207-nucleotide (nt) reading frame overlapping out of phase the NH2- terminal portion of the adenosinetriphosphatase (ATPase) subunit 6 gene has been identified as the animal equivalent of the recently discovered yeast H+-ATPase subunit gene."
Less Hard to Read : "The smallest of the UR-F's is URFA6L, a 207-nucleotide (nt) reading frame overlapping out of phase the NH2-terminal portion of the adenosinetriphosphatase (ATPase) subunit 6 gene; it has been identified as the animal equivalent of the recently discovered yeast H+-ATPase subunit 8 gene."
Second, place familiar information first in a clause, a sentence, or a paragraph, and put the new and unfamiliar information later.
More confusing : The epidermis, the dermis, and the subcutaneous layer are the three layers of the skin. A layer of dead skin cells makes up the epidermis, which forms the body's shield against the world. Blood vessels, carrying nourishment, and nerve endings, which relay information about the outside world, are found in the dermis. Sweat glands and fat cells make up the third layer, the subcutaneous layer.
Less confusing : The skin consists of three layers: the epidermis, the dermis, and the subcutaneous layer. The epidermis is made up of dead skin cells, and forms a protective shield between the body and the world. The dermis contains the blood vessels and nerve endings that nourish the skin and make it receptive to outside stimuli. The subcutaneous layer contains the sweat glands and fat cells which perform other functions of the skin.
Wortman-Wunder, Emily, & Kate Kiefer. (1998). Writing the Scientific Paper. Writing@CSU . Colorado State University. https://writing.colostate.edu/resources/writing/guides/.
Writing a scientific paper.
Citing sources in the introduction, "introduction checklist" from: how to write a good scientific paper. chris a. mack. spie. 2018..
This is where you describe briefly and clearly why you are writing the paper. The introduction supplies sufficient background information for the reader to understand and evaluate the experiment you did. It also supplies a rationale for the study.
It is important to cite sources in the introduction section of your paper as evidence of the claims you are making. There are ways of citing sources in the text so that the reader can find the full reference in the literature cited section at the end of the paper, yet the flow of the reading is not badly interrupted. Below are some example of how this can be done: "Smith (1983) found that N-fixing plants could be infected by several different species of Rhizobium." "Walnut trees are known to be allelopathic (Smith 1949, Bond et al. 1955, Jones and Green 1963)." "Although the presence of Rhizobium normally increases the growth of legumes (Nguyen 1987), the opposite effect has been observed (Washington 1999)." Note that articles by one or two authors are always cited in the text using their last names. However, if there are more than two authors, the last name of the 1st author is given followed by the abbreviation et al. which is Latin for "and others".
From: https://writingcenter.gmu.edu/guides/imrad-reports-introductions
Off-campus? Please use the Software VPN and choose the group UCIFull to access licensed content. For more information, please Click here
Software VPN is not available for guests, so they may not have access to some content when connecting from off-campus.
An official website of the United States government
The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .
Barbara j. hoogenboom.
1 Grand Valley State University, Grand Rapids, MI, USA
2 University of Wichita, Wichita, KS, USA
Successful production of a written product for submission to a peer‐reviewed scientific journal requires substantial effort. Such an effort can be maximized by following a few simple suggestions when composing/creating the product for submission. By following some suggested guidelines and avoiding common errors, the process can be streamlined and success realized for even beginning/novice authors as they negotiate the publication process. The purpose of this invited commentary is to offer practical suggestions for achieving success when writing and submitting manuscripts to The International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy and other professional journals.
“The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking” Albert Einstein
Conducting scientific and clinical research is only the beginning of the scholarship of discovery. In order for the results of research to be accessible to other professionals and have a potential effect on the greater scientific community, it must be written and published. Most clinical and scientific discovery is published in peer‐reviewed journals, which are those that utilize a process by which an author's peers, or experts in the content area, evaluate the manuscript. Following this review the manuscript is recommended for publication, revision or rejection. It is the rigor of this review process that makes scientific journals the primary source of new information that impacts clinical decision‐making and practice. 1 , 2
The task of writing a scientific paper and submitting it to a journal for publication is a time‐consuming and often daunting task. 3 , 4 Barriers to effective writing include lack of experience, poor writing habits, writing anxiety, unfamiliarity with the requirements of scholarly writing, lack of confidence in writing ability, fear of failure, and resistance to feedback. 5 However, the very process of writing can be a helpful tool for promoting the process of scientific thinking, 6 , 7 and effective writing skills allow professionals to participate in broader scientific conversations. Furthermore, peer review manuscript publication systems requiring these technical writing skills can be developed and improved with practice. 8 Having an understanding of the process and structure used to produce a peer‐reviewed publication will surely improve the likelihood that a submitted manuscript will result in a successful publication.
Clear communication of the findings of research is essential to the growth and development of science 3 and professional practice. The culmination of the publication process provides not only satisfaction for the researcher and protection of intellectual property, but also the important function of dissemination of research results, new ideas, and alternate thought; which ultimately facilitates scholarly discourse. In short, publication of scientific papers is one way to advance evidence‐based practice in many disciplines, including sports physical therapy. Failure to publish important findings significantly diminishes the potential impact that those findings may have on clinical practice. 9
To begin it might be interesting to learn why reviewers accept manuscripts! Reviewers consider the following five criteria to be the most important in decisions about whether to accept manuscripts for publication: 1) the importance, timeliness, relevance, and prevalence of the problem addressed; 2) the quality of the writing style (i.e., that it is well‐written, clear, straightforward, easy to follow, and logical); 3) the study design applied (i.e., that the design was appropriate, rigorous, and comprehensive); 4) the degree to which the literature review was thoughtful, focused, and up‐to‐date; and 5) the use of a sufficiently large sample. 10 For these statements to be true there are also reasons that reviewers reject manuscripts. The following are the top five reasons for rejecting papers: 1) inappropriate, incomplete, or insufficiently described statistics; 2) over‐interpretation of results; 3) use of inappropriate, suboptimal, or insufficiently described populations or instruments; 4) small or biased samples; and 5) text that is poorly written or difficult to follow. 10 , 11 With these reasons for acceptance or rejection in mind, it is time to review basics and general writing tips to be used when performing manuscript preparation.
“Begin with the end in mind” . When you begin writing about your research, begin with a specific target journal in mind. 12 Every scientific journal should have specific lists of manuscript categories that are preferred for their readership. The IJSPT seeks to provide readership with current information to enhance the practice of sports physical therapy. Therefore the manuscript categories accepted by IJSPT include: Original research; Systematic reviews of literature; Clinical commentary and Current concept reviews; Case reports; Clinical suggestions and unique practice techniques; and Technical notes. Once a decision has been made to write a manuscript, compose an outline that complies with the requirements of the target submission journal and has each of the suggested sections. This means carefully checking the submission criteria and preparing your paper in the exact format of the journal to which you intend to submit. Be thoughtful about the distinction between content (what you are reporting) and structure (where it goes in the manuscript). Poor placement of content confuses the reader (reviewer) and may cause misinterpretation of content. 3 , 5
It may be helpful to follow the IMRaD format for writing scientific manuscripts. This acronym stands for the sections contained within the article: Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. Each of these areas of the manuscript will be addressed in this commentary.
Many accomplished authors write their results first, followed by an introduction and discussion, in an attempt to “stay true” to their results and not stray into additional areas. Typically the last two portions to be written are the conclusion and the abstract.
The ability to accurately describe ideas, protocols/procedures, and outcomes are the pillars of scientific writing . Accurate and clear expression of your thoughts and research information should be the primary goal of scientific writing. 12 Remember that accuracy and clarity are even more important when trying to get complicated ideas across. Contain your literature review, ideas, and discussions to your topic, theme, model, review, commentary, or case. Avoid vague terminology and too much prose. Use short rather than long sentences. If jargon has to be utilized keep it to a minimum and explain the terms you do use clearly. 13
Write with a measure of formality, using scientific language and avoiding conjunctions, slang, and discipline or regionally specific nomenclature or terms (e.g. exercise nicknames). For example, replace the term “Monster walks” with “closed‐chain hip abduction with elastic resistance around the thighs”. You may later refer to the exercise as “also known as Monster walks” if you desire.
Avoid first person language and instead write using third person language. Some journals do not ascribe to this requirement, and allow first person references, however, IJSPT prefers use of third person. For example, replace “We determined that…” with “The authors determined that….”.
For novice writers, it is really helpful to seek a reading mentor that will help you pre‐read your submission. Problems such as improper use of grammar, tense, and spelling are often a cause of rejection by reviewers. Despite the content of the study these easily fixed errors suggest that the authors created the manuscript with less thought leading reviewers to think that the manuscript may also potentially have erroneous findings as well. A review from a second set of trained eyes will often catch these errors missed by the original authors. If English is not your first language, the editorial staff at IJSPT suggests that you consult with someone with the relevant expertise to give you guidance on English writing conventions, verb tense, and grammar. Excellent writing in English is hard, even for those of us for whom it is our first language!
Use figures and graphics to your advantage . ‐ Consider the use of graphic/figure representation of data and important procedures or exercises. Tables should be able to stand alone and be completely understandable at a quick glance. Understanding a table should not require careful review of the manuscript! Figures dramatically enhance the graphic appeal of a scientific paper. Many formats for graphic presentation are acceptable, including graphs, charts, tables, and pictures or videos. Photographs should be clear, free of clutter or extraneous background distractions and be taken with models wearing simple clothing. Color photographs are preferred. Digital figures (Scans or existing files as well as new photographs) must be at least 300dpi. All photographs should be provided as separate files (jpeg or tif preferred) and not be embedded in the paper. Quality and clarity of figures are essential for reproduction purposes and should be considered before taking images for the manuscript.
A video of an exercise or procedure speaks a thousand words. Please consider using short video clips as descriptive additions to your paper. They will be placed on the IJSPT website and accompany your paper. The video clips must be submitted in MPEG‐1, MPEG‐2, Quicktime (.mov), or Audio/Video Interface (.avi) formats. Maximum cumulative length of videos is 5 minutes. Each video segment may not exceed 50 MB, and each video clip must be saved as a separate file and clearly identified. Formulate descriptive figure/video and Table/chart/graph titles and place them on a figure legend document. Carefully consider placement of, naming of, and location of figures. It makes the job of the editors much easier!
Avoid Plagiarism and inadvertent lack of citations. Finally, use citations to your benefit. Cite frequently in order to avoid any plagiarism. The bottom line: If it is not your original idea, give credit where credit is due . When using direct quotations, provide not only the number of the citation, but the page where the quote was found. All citations should appear in text as a superscripted number followed by punctuation. It is the authors' responsibility to fully ensure all references are cited in completed form, in an accurate location. Please carefully follow the instructions for citations and check that all references in your reference list are cited in the paper and that all citations in the paper appear correctly in the reference list. Please go to IJSPT submission guidelines for full information on the format for citations.
Sometimes written as an afterthought, the abstract is of extreme importance as in many instances this section is what is initially previewed by readership to determine if the remainder of the article is worth reading. This is the authors opportunity to draw the reader into the study and entice them to read the rest of the article. The abstract is a summary of the article or study written in 3 rd person allowing the readers to get a quick glance of what the contents of the article include. Writing an abstract is rather challenging as being brief, accurate and concise are requisite. The headings and structure for an abstract are usually provided in the instructions for authors. In some instances, the abstract may change slightly pending content revisions required during the peer review process. Therefore it often works well to complete this portion of the manuscript last. Remember the abstract should be able to stand alone and should be as succinct as possible. 14
The introduction is one of the more difficult portions of the manuscript to write. Past studies are used to set the stage or provide the reader with information regarding the necessity of the represented project. For an introduction to work properly, the reader must feel that the research question is clear, concise, and worthy of study.
A competent introduction should include at least four key concepts: 1) significance of the topic, 2) the information gap in the available literature associated with the topic, 3) a literature review in support of the key questions, 4) subsequently developed purposes/objectives and hypotheses. 9
When constructing a review of the literature, be attentive to “sticking” or “staying true” to your topic at hand. Don't reach or include too broad of a literature review. For example, do not include extraneous information about performance or prevention if your research does not actually address those things. The literature review of a scientific paper is not an exhaustive review of all available knowledge in a given field of study. That type of thorough review should be left to review articles or textbook chapters. Throughout the introduction (and later in the discussion!) remind yourself that a paper, existing evidence, or results of a paper cannot draw conclusions, demonstrate, describe, or make judgments, only PEOPLE (authors) can. “The evidence demonstrates that” should be stated, “Smith and Jones, demonstrated that….”
Conclude your introduction with a solid statement of your purpose(s) and your hypothesis(es), as appropriate. The purpose and objectives should clearly relate to the information gap associated with the given manuscript topic discussed earlier in the introduction section. This may seem repetitive, but it actually is helpful to ensure the reader clearly sees the evolution, importance, and critical aspects of the study at hand See Table 1 for examples of well‐stated purposes.
Examples of well-stated purposes by submission type.
Type of Submission | Example purpose |
---|---|
Original Research | Therefore, the purpose of this study was to describe the volume of pitching for pitchers from multiple college teams at the Division I level. |
Systematic Review of the Literature | Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review was to investigate the association between training characteristics and running related injuries. |
Clinical Commentary/Current Concepts Report | The purpose of this clinical commentary is to examine the risk factors contributing to the high recurrence rate of hamstring injuries, and propose a unique rehabilitation strategy addressing these factors in order to decrease the rate of reinjury. |
Case Report | The purpose of this case report is to describe the non-surgical management of a professional athlete with the characteristic signs and symptoms of a sports hernia. |
Clinical Suggestion | The purpose of this clinical commentary is to review types of integumentary wounds that may occur in sport, and their acute management. |
The methods section should clearly describe the specific design of the study and provide clear and concise description of the procedures that were performed. The purpose of sufficient detail in the methods section is so that an appropriately trained person would be able to replicate your experiments. 15 There should be complete transparency when describing the study. To assist in writing and manuscript preparation there are several checklists or guidelines that are available on the IJSPT website. The CONSORT guidelines can be used when developing and reporting a randomized controlled trial. 16 The STARD checklist was developed for designing a diagnostic accuracy study. 17 The PRISMA checklist was developed for use when performing a meta‐analyses or systematic review. 18 A clear methods section should contain the following information: 1) the population and equipment used in the study, 2) how the population and equipment were prepared and what was done during the study, 3) the protocol used, 4) the outcomes and how they were measured, 5) the methods used for data analysis. Initially a brief paragraph should explain the overall procedures and study design. Within this first paragraph there is generally a description of inclusion and exclusion criteria which help the reader understand the population used. Paragraphs that follow should describe in more detail the procedures followed for the study. A clear description of how data was gathered is also helpful. For example were data gathered prospectively or retrospectively? Who if anyone was blinded, and where and when was the actual data collected?
Although it is a good idea for the authors to have justification and a rationale for their procedures, these should be saved for inclusion into the discussion section, not to be discussed in the methods section. However, occasionally studies supporting components of the methods section such as reliability of tests, or validation of outcome measures may be included in the methods section.
The final portion of the methods section will include the statistical methods used to analyze the data. 19 This does not mean that the actual results should be discussed in the methods section, as they have an entire section of their own!
Most scientific journals support the need for all projects involving humans or animals to have up‐to‐date documentation of ethical approval. 20 The methods section should include a clear statement that the researchers have obtained approval from an appropriate institutional review board.
In most journals the results section is separate from the discussion section. It is important that you clearly distinguish your results from your discussion. The results section should describe the results only. The discussion section should put those results into a broader context. Report your results neutrally, as you “found them”. Again, be thoughtful about content and structure. Think carefully about where content is placed in the overall structure of your paper. It is not appropriate to bring up additional results, not discussed in the results section, in the discussion. All results must first be described/presented and then discussed. Thus, the discussion should not simply be a repeat of the results section. Carefully discuss where your information is similar or different from other published evidence and why this might be so. What was different in methods or analysis, what was similar?
As previously stated, stick to your topic at hand, and do not overstretch your discussion! One of the major pitfalls in writing the discussion section is overstating the significance of your findings 4 or making very strong statements. For example, it is better to say: “Findings of the current study support….” or “these findings suggest…” than, “Findings of the current study prove that…” or “this means that….”. Maintain a sense of humbleness, as nothing is without question in the outcomes of any type of research, in any discipline! Use words like “possibly”, “likely” or “suggests” to soften findings. 12
Do not discuss extraneous ideas, concepts, or information not covered by your topic/paper/commentary. Be sure to carefully address all relevant results, not just the statistically significant ones or the ones that support your hypotheses. When you must resort to speculation or opinion, be certain to state that up front using phrases such as “we therefore speculate” or “in the authors' opinion”.
Remember, just as in the introduction and literature review, evidence or results cannot draw conclusions, just as previously stated, only people, scientists, researchers, and authors can!
Finish with a concise, 3‐5 sentence conclusion paragraph. This is not just a restatement of your results, rather is comprised of some final, summative statements that reflect the flow and outcomes of the entire paper. Do not include speculative statements or additional material; however, based upon your findings a statement about potential changes in clinical practice or future research opportunities can be provided here.
Writing for publication can be a challenging yet satisfying endeavor. The ability to examine, relate, and interlink evidence, as well as to provide a peer‐reviewed, disseminated product of your research labors can be rewarding. A few suggestions have been offered in this commentary that may assist the novice or the developing writer to attempt, polish, and perfect their approach to scholarly writing.
Research in any field has value, as it provides an opportunity to learn new information about any phenomenon or phenomenon. Moreover, scientific research contributes to the deepening of existing knowledge and the improvement of established theories. Thus, it is of particular importance to consider and gain an understanding of what research theory is and the differences and similarities of various types of research. This provides an opportunity to make the right choice and get the most effective and successful outcomes of scientific work.
First of all, before starting to compare different types of scientific research, it is necessary to gain awareness of what the phenomenon under study is. Thus, Salkind (2017) stated that “research is a process through which new knowledge is discovered” and “theory helps us to organize this new information into a coherent body that explains and predicts events” (p. 3). Following this information, it follows that research is the basis for the construction of theories and theoretical approaches. The main component of this aspect is that it is based on data and information that has been deduced earlier by other scientists and forms universal conclusions (Perna, 2020). In other words, the results and findings of any scientific work can be used regardless of the attached setting. Moreover, all research is united by the fact that it can be generalized and necessarily related to theory. However, the most essential characteristic is that any research is apolitical and aimed at improving society.
The next step is to compare the different types of research that can be selected by researchers. There are four main ways to acquire new information and improve existing ones, among which are non-experimental and experimental research and accurate experimental and quasi-experimental research (Salkind, 2017). Each of them has its advantages and disadvantages, which depend on what goals and objectives are faced by researchers making a choice. Awareness of the unique features of these methods is an integral part of the preparation for experimental scientific work.
First of all, all methods of conducting research differ in the ways of collecting information. Hence, non-experimental research is characterized by the fact that it includes several methods at once. Among them, there are various surveys among a specific population, information analysis, or correlation, which is based on the study of relations between variables. Salkind (2017) defines this approach as “examines the relationship between variables, without any attention to cause and effect relationships” (p. 10). Another distinctive feature that follows from the information provided is the lack of control over the facts or the precision of the work being carried out. Thus, this approach can be practical when studying current or past events.
On the other hand, the experimental approach has a higher control over the accuracy of the study and the information that researchers need. A distinctive feature of this method is also considered to be that it “examines the cause-and-effect relationship between variables” (Salkind, 2017, p. 13). The similarity between the experimental and non-experimental approaches is the limited time frame for the study of present or past phenomena. An example of experimental research is conducting a case study.
Another type of scientific work that requires attention within the framework of this paper is quasi-experimental research. This method, like the experimental one, is based on the study of cause and effect, but in this case, they are collected with preassigned groups (Salkind, 2017). In other words, researchers use populations with certain characteristics that correspond to the topic in question to gain information. As in the non-experimental method of conducting research, in a quasi-experiment, researchers do not have control over who is assigned to which group.
The last type, but no less valuable, is accurate experimental research. As in the previous method, it is based on the fact that groups of populations are based on treatment variables or treatment conditions, that is, certain characteristics (Salkind, 2017). In addition, research stated that “this is the ideal model for establishing a cause-and-effect relationship because the researcher has clearly defined the possible cause (if indeed it results in some effect) and can keep very close tabs on what is happening” (Salkind, 2017, p. 14). Moreover, this is a consequence of the fact that it has an exceptionally high level of control over the conduct of the experiment and the data obtained during it. True experimental research is based on the examination of current events and most often uses the study of the function of the cause of comparison between effects.
In conclusion, the research theory is of particular value when acquiring new information and making changes to the already received. Depending on the goals and objectives set by scientists, such methods as experimental and non-experimental research and true experimental and quasi-experimental research can be chosen. Each of them has common characteristics inherent in all of the above methods. At the same time, each of them is unique in the way of collecting information, the level of control and precision, and the time of analysis.
Perna, L. W. (2020). Higher education: Handbook of theory and research . Springer.
Salkind, N.J. (2017). Exploring research . Pearson.
IvyPanda. (2023, December 8). Scientific Research: Types and Theory. https://ivypanda.com/essays/scientific-research-types-and-theory/
"Scientific Research: Types and Theory." IvyPanda , 8 Dec. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/scientific-research-types-and-theory/.
IvyPanda . (2023) 'Scientific Research: Types and Theory'. 8 December.
IvyPanda . 2023. "Scientific Research: Types and Theory." December 8, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/scientific-research-types-and-theory/.
1. IvyPanda . "Scientific Research: Types and Theory." December 8, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/scientific-research-types-and-theory/.
Bibliography
IvyPanda . "Scientific Research: Types and Theory." December 8, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/scientific-research-types-and-theory/.
IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:
Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.
Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.
Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:
Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .
To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.
Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .
Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.
scientific method , mathematical and experimental technique employed in the sciences . More specifically, it is the technique used in the construction and testing of a scientific hypothesis .
The process of observing, asking questions, and seeking answers through tests and experiments is not unique to any one field of science. In fact, the scientific method is applied broadly in science, across many different fields. Many empirical sciences, especially the social sciences , use mathematical tools borrowed from probability theory and statistics , together with outgrowths of these, such as decision theory , game theory , utility theory, and operations research . Philosophers of science have addressed general methodological problems, such as the nature of scientific explanation and the justification of induction .
The scientific method is critical to the development of scientific theories , which explain empirical (experiential) laws in a scientifically rational manner. In a typical application of the scientific method, a researcher develops a hypothesis , tests it through various means, and then modifies the hypothesis on the basis of the outcome of the tests and experiments. The modified hypothesis is then retested, further modified, and tested again, until it becomes consistent with observed phenomena and testing outcomes. In this way, hypotheses serve as tools by which scientists gather data. From that data and the many different scientific investigations undertaken to explore hypotheses, scientists are able to develop broad general explanations, or scientific theories.
See also Mill’s methods ; hypothetico-deductive method .
Science Essay Examples
Published on: May 3, 2023
Last updated on: Jan 31, 2024
Share this article
Are you struggling to write a science essay that stands out?
Are you tired of feeling overwhelmed by scientific jargon and complicated concepts?
You're not alone.
Science essays can be a challenge for even the most dedicated students. It's no wonder that so many students struggle to produce top-notch papers.
But fear not!
In this blog post, we'll provide you with some science essay examples and tips. We will help you write a top-notch paper that impresses your professor and earns you a high grade.
So buckle up and get ready to tackle science essays like a pro!
On This Page On This Page -->
Writing a science essay can be a daunting task for students. However, with the right guidance and examples, it can also be a rewarding and enlightening experience.
Here, we'll provide you with examples so you can elevate your own writing.
Science Essay Example SPM
Scientific Essay Example Pdf (Insert
Science Paper Example
Science Project Essay Example
Science is a vast field that encompasses many different subjects, from biology to physics to chemistry. As a student, you may find yourself tasked with writing a science essay on a subject that you're not particularly familiar with.
We have provided you with science essay examples for different subjects to help you get started.
Social Science Essay Example
Political Science Essay Example
Environmental Science Essay Example
Health Science Essay Example
Computer Science Essay Example
Science essays are important part of university-level education. However, different universities may have different requirements and expectations when it comes to writing these essays.
That's why we've compiled some science essay examples for different universities. You can see what works and what doesn't, and tailor your own writing accordingly.
Scientific Essay Example University
Mcmaster Health Science Essay Example
Cornell Arts And Science Essay Example
Tough Essay Due? Hire Tough Writers!
Science essays are a crucial part of many subjects, and learning to structure them effectively is essential for achieving academic success.
Letâs explore scientific essay structure.
The introduction of a science essay should introduce the topic and provide some context for the reader.
You should explain the purpose of the essay and provide a thesis statement that outlines the main argument you will make in the essay. A good introduction should also capture the reader's interest and motivate them to read on.
Check out these how to start a science essay examples for better understanding:
The advancement of science and technology has transformed the world we live in. From the discovery of electricity to the invention of the internet, our society has made remarkable progress in understanding and utilizing the forces of nature. Science has not only improved our daily lives but also paved the way for groundbreaking innovations and discoveries that have changed the course of history. In this essay, we will explore the significance of science in our modern world and the impact it has on our daily lives. We will also examine the role of science in shaping our future and the ethical considerations that arise from its use. Through this exploration, we hope to gain a deeper understanding of the importance of science and its impact on our world. |
The body paragraphs of a science essay should provide evidence to support the thesis statement. You should use scientific evidence, research, and data to support your argument.
Each paragraph should focus on one key point, and the points should be organized logically to create a coherent argument. It is essential to provide citations for all sources you use in your essay.
Here is an example for you:
One of the most significant impacts of science on our world is the development of new technologies. From smartphones to electric cars, science has led to countless innovations that have made our lives easier and more convenient. However, with these advancements also come ethical considerations. For example, the development of artificial intelligence (AI) has raised concerns about the potential loss of jobs and the ethical implications of relying on machines to make important decisions. Similarly, the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has sparked debates about the safety and environmental impact of altering the genetic makeup of living organisms. As we continue to make scientific advancements, it is essential to consider the ethical implications and ensure that we are using science to benefit society as a whole. |
The conclusion of a science essay should summarize the main points of the essay and restate the thesis statement in a compelling manner.
You should also provide some final thoughts or recommendations based on the evidence presented in the essay.
The conclusion should be concise and leave a lasting impression on the reader.
In conclusion, science plays a vital role in our modern world. It has led to significant advancements in technology, medicine, and our understanding of the natural world. However, with these advancements come ethical considerations that must be carefully considered. It is essential that we continue to use science to benefit society as a whole and address the challenges facing our world, from climate change to pandemics. Through a greater understanding of science and its impact on our world, we can work towards a brighter future for ourselves and future generations. |
There are countless interesting, thought-provoking and problem solving essay topics in science.
Explore some compelling natural science essay topics to inspire your writing.
Paper Due? Why Suffer? That's our Job!
Writing a science essay can be challenging, especially if you don't have much experience in writing academic papers.
However, with the right approach and strategies, you can produce a high-quality science essays.
Here are some tips to help you write a successful science essay:
Understand the assignment requirements: Before you start writing your essay, make sure you understand the assignment requirements. Read the prompt carefully and make note of any specific guidelines or formatting requirements.
Choose a topic that interests you: Writing about a topic that you find interesting and engaging can make the process enjoyable and rewarding. Consider topics that you have studied in class or that you have a personal interest in.
Conduct thorough research: To write a successful science essay, you need to have a deep understanding of the topic you are writing about. Conduct thorough research using reliable sources such as academic journals, textbooks, and reputable websites.
Develop a clear and concise thesis statement: Your thesis statement should clearly state your argument or position on the topic you are writing about. It should be concise and specific, and should be supported by evidence throughout your essay.
Use evidence to support your claims: When writing a science essay, it's important to use evidence to support your claims and arguments. This can include scientific data, research findings, and expert opinions.
Edit and proofread your essay: Before submitting your essay, make sure to edit and proofread it carefully. Check for spelling and grammatical errors. Ensure that your essay is formatted correctly according to the assignment requirements.
In conclusion, this blog has provided a comprehensive guide to writing a successful science essay.
By following the tips, students can produce high-quality essays that showcase their understanding of science.
If you're struggling to write a science essay or need additional assistance, CollegeEssay.org is one of the best online essay services to help you out,
Our expert writers have extensive experience in writing science essays for students of all levels.
So why wait? Contact our science essay writing service today!
What are some common mistakes to avoid when writing a science essay.
Some common mistakes to avoid include:
To make your science essay stand out, consider choosing a unique or controversial topic. Using relevant and up-to-date sources, and present your information in a clear and concise manner. You can also consider using visuals such as graphs or charts to enhance your essay.
If you're struggling to come up with a topic for your science essay, consider discussing potential topics with your instructor or classmates. You can also conduct research online or in academic journals to find inspiration.
Research is an essential component of writing a science essay. Your essay should be grounded in accurate and reliable scientific information. That is why it's important to conduct thorough research using reputable sources.
While personal anecdotes or experiences can be engaging, they may not always be relevant to a science essay. It's important to focus on presenting factual information and scientific evidence to support your argument or position.
Caleb S. (Law, Literature)
Caleb S. has extensive experience in writing and holds a Masters from Oxford University. He takes great satisfaction in helping students exceed their academic goals. Caleb always puts the needs of his clients first and is dedicated to providing quality service.
Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!
Legal & Policies
Disclaimer: All client orders are completed by our team of highly qualified human writers. The essays and papers provided by us are not to be used for submission but rather as learning models only.
Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.
Methodology
Research methods are specific procedures for collecting and analyzing data. Developing your research methods is an integral part of your research design . When planning your methods, there are two key decisions you will make.
First, decide how you will collect data . Your methods depend on what type of data you need to answer your research question :
Second, decide how you will analyze the data .
Methods for collecting data, examples of data collection methods, methods for analyzing data, examples of data analysis methods, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about research methods.
Data is the information that you collect for the purposes of answering your research question . The type of data you need depends on the aims of your research.
Your choice of qualitative or quantitative data collection depends on the type of knowledge you want to develop.
For questions about ideas, experiences and meanings, or to study something that can’t be described numerically, collect qualitative data .
If you want to develop a more mechanistic understanding of a topic, or your research involves hypothesis testing , collect quantitative data .
Qualitative | to broader populations. . | |
---|---|---|
Quantitative | . |
You can also take a mixed methods approach , where you use both qualitative and quantitative research methods.
Primary research is any original data that you collect yourself for the purposes of answering your research question (e.g. through surveys , observations and experiments ). Secondary research is data that has already been collected by other researchers (e.g. in a government census or previous scientific studies).
If you are exploring a novel research question, you’ll probably need to collect primary data . But if you want to synthesize existing knowledge, analyze historical trends, or identify patterns on a large scale, secondary data might be a better choice.
Primary | . | methods. |
---|---|---|
Secondary |
In descriptive research , you collect data about your study subject without intervening. The validity of your research will depend on your sampling method .
In experimental research , you systematically intervene in a process and measure the outcome. The validity of your research will depend on your experimental design .
To conduct an experiment, you need to be able to vary your independent variable , precisely measure your dependent variable, and control for confounding variables . If it’s practically and ethically possible, this method is the best choice for answering questions about cause and effect.
Descriptive | . . | |
---|---|---|
Experimental |
Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:
See an example
Research method | Primary or secondary? | Qualitative or quantitative? | When to use |
---|---|---|---|
Primary | Quantitative | To test cause-and-effect relationships. | |
Primary | Quantitative | To understand general characteristics of a population. | |
Interview/focus group | Primary | Qualitative | To gain more in-depth understanding of a topic. |
Observation | Primary | Either | To understand how something occurs in its natural setting. |
Secondary | Either | To situate your research in an existing body of work, or to evaluate trends within a research topic. | |
Either | Either | To gain an in-depth understanding of a specific group or context, or when you don’t have the resources for a large study. |
Your data analysis methods will depend on the type of data you collect and how you prepare it for analysis.
Data can often be analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. For example, survey responses could be analyzed qualitatively by studying the meanings of responses or quantitatively by studying the frequencies of responses.
Qualitative analysis is used to understand words, ideas, and experiences. You can use it to interpret data that was collected:
Qualitative analysis tends to be quite flexible and relies on the researcher’s judgement, so you have to reflect carefully on your choices and assumptions and be careful to avoid research bias .
Quantitative analysis uses numbers and statistics to understand frequencies, averages and correlations (in descriptive studies) or cause-and-effect relationships (in experiments).
You can use quantitative analysis to interpret data that was collected either:
Because the data is collected and analyzed in a statistically valid way, the results of quantitative analysis can be easily standardized and shared among researchers.
Research method | Qualitative or quantitative? | When to use |
---|---|---|
Quantitative | To analyze data collected in a statistically valid manner (e.g. from experiments, surveys, and observations). | |
Meta-analysis | Quantitative | To statistically analyze the results of a large collection of studies. Can only be applied to studies that collected data in a statistically valid manner. |
Qualitative | To analyze data collected from interviews, , or textual sources. To understand general themes in the data and how they are communicated. | |
Either | To analyze large volumes of textual or visual data collected from surveys, literature reviews, or other sources. Can be quantitative (i.e. frequencies of words) or qualitative (i.e. meanings of words). |
If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.
Research bias
Quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings.
Quantitative methods allow you to systematically measure variables and test hypotheses . Qualitative methods allow you to explore concepts and experiences in more detail.
In mixed methods research , you use both qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis methods to answer your research question .
A sample is a subset of individuals from a larger population . Sampling means selecting the group that you will actually collect data from in your research. For example, if you are researching the opinions of students in your university, you could survey a sample of 100 students.
In statistics, sampling allows you to test a hypothesis about the characteristics of a population.
The research methods you use depend on the type of data you need to answer your research question .
Methodology refers to the overarching strategy and rationale of your research project . It involves studying the methods used in your field and the theories or principles behind them, in order to develop an approach that matches your objectives.
Methods are the specific tools and procedures you use to collect and analyze data (for example, experiments, surveys , and statistical tests ).
In shorter scientific papers, where the aim is to report the findings of a specific study, you might simply describe what you did in a methods section .
In a longer or more complex research project, such as a thesis or dissertation , you will probably include a methodology section , where you explain your approach to answering the research questions and cite relevant sources to support your choice of methods.
Other students also liked, writing strong research questions | criteria & examples.
Peer Reviewed
Article metrics.
CrossRef Citations
Altmetric Score
PDF Downloads
Academic journals, archives, and repositories are seeing an increasing number of questionable research papers clearly produced using generative AI. They are often created with widely available, general-purpose AI applications, most likely ChatGPT, and mimic scientific writing. Google Scholar easily locates and lists these questionable papers alongside reputable, quality-controlled research. Our analysis of a selection of questionable GPT-fabricated scientific papers found in Google Scholar shows that many are about applied, often controversial topics susceptible to disinformation: the environment, health, and computing. The resulting enhanced potential for malicious manipulation of society’s evidence base, particularly in politically divisive domains, is a growing concern.
Swedish School of Library and Information Science, University of Borås, Sweden
Department of Arts and Cultural Sciences, Lund University, Sweden
Division of Environmental Communication, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden
The use of ChatGPT to generate text for academic papers has raised concerns about research integrity. Discussion of this phenomenon is ongoing in editorials, commentaries, opinion pieces, and on social media (Bom, 2023; Stokel-Walker, 2024; Thorp, 2023). There are now several lists of papers suspected of GPT misuse, and new papers are constantly being added. 1 See for example Academ-AI, https://www.academ-ai.info/ , and Retraction Watch, https://retractionwatch.com/papers-and-peer-reviews-with-evidence-of-chatgpt-writing/ . While many legitimate uses of GPT for research and academic writing exist (Huang & Tan, 2023; Kitamura, 2023; Lund et al., 2023), its undeclared use—beyond proofreading—has potentially far-reaching implications for both science and society, but especially for their relationship. It, therefore, seems important to extend the discussion to one of the most accessible and well-known intermediaries between science, but also certain types of misinformation, and the public, namely Google Scholar, also in response to the legitimate concerns that the discussion of generative AI and misinformation needs to be more nuanced and empirically substantiated (Simon et al., 2023).
Google Scholar, https://scholar.google.com , is an easy-to-use academic search engine. It is available for free, and its index is extensive (Gusenbauer & Haddaway, 2020). It is also often touted as a credible source for academic literature and even recommended in library guides, by media and information literacy initiatives, and fact checkers (Tripodi et al., 2023). However, Google Scholar lacks the transparency and adherence to standards that usually characterize citation databases. Instead, Google Scholar uses automated crawlers, like Google’s web search engine (Martín-Martín et al., 2021), and the inclusion criteria are based on primarily technical standards, allowing any individual author—with or without scientific affiliation—to upload papers to be indexed (Google Scholar Help, n.d.). It has been shown that Google Scholar is susceptible to manipulation through citation exploits (Antkare, 2020) and by providing access to fake scientific papers (Dadkhah et al., 2017). A large part of Google Scholar’s index consists of publications from established scientific journals or other forms of quality-controlled, scholarly literature. However, the index also contains a large amount of gray literature, including student papers, working papers, reports, preprint servers, and academic networking sites, as well as material from so-called “questionable” academic journals, including paper mills. The search interface does not offer the possibility to filter the results meaningfully by material type, publication status, or form of quality control, such as limiting the search to peer-reviewed material.
To understand the occurrence of ChatGPT (co-)authored work in Google Scholar’s index, we scraped it for publications, including one of two common ChatGPT responses (see Appendix A) that we encountered on social media and in media reports (DeGeurin, 2024). The results of our descriptive statistical analyses showed that around 62% did not declare the use of GPTs. Most of these GPT-fabricated papers were found in non-indexed journals and working papers, but some cases included research published in mainstream scientific journals and conference proceedings. 2 Indexed journals mean scholarly journals indexed by abstract and citation databases such as Scopus and Web of Science, where the indexation implies journals with high scientific quality. Non-indexed journals are journals that fall outside of this indexation. More than half (57%) of these GPT-fabricated papers concerned policy-relevant subject areas susceptible to influence operations. To avoid increasing the visibility of these publications, we abstained from referencing them in this research note. However, we have made the data available in the Harvard Dataverse repository.
The publications were related to three issue areas—health (14.5%), environment (19.5%) and computing (23%)—with key terms such “healthcare,” “COVID-19,” or “infection”for health-related papers, and “analysis,” “sustainable,” and “global” for environment-related papers. In several cases, the papers had titles that strung together general keywords and buzzwords, thus alluding to very broad and current research. These terms included “biology,” “telehealth,” “climate policy,” “diversity,” and “disrupting,” to name just a few. While the study’s scope and design did not include a detailed analysis of which parts of the articles included fabricated text, our dataset did contain the surrounding sentences for each occurrence of the suspicious phrases that formed the basis for our search and subsequent selection. Based on that, we can say that the phrases occurred in most sections typically found in scientific publications, including the literature review, methods, conceptual and theoretical frameworks, background, motivation or societal relevance, and even discussion. This was confirmed during the joint coding, where we read and discussed all articles. It became clear that not just the text related to the telltale phrases was created by GPT, but that almost all articles in our sample of questionable articles likely contained traces of GPT-fabricated text everywhere.
Evidence hacking and backfiring effects
Generative pre-trained transformers (GPTs) can be used to produce texts that mimic scientific writing. These texts, when made available online—as we demonstrate—leak into the databases of academic search engines and other parts of the research infrastructure for scholarly communication. This development exacerbates problems that were already present with less sophisticated text generators (Antkare, 2020; Cabanac & Labbé, 2021). Yet, the public release of ChatGPT in 2022, together with the way Google Scholar works, has increased the likelihood of lay people (e.g., media, politicians, patients, students) coming across questionable (or even entirely GPT-fabricated) papers and other problematic research findings. Previous research has emphasized that the ability to determine the value and status of scientific publications for lay people is at stake when misleading articles are passed off as reputable (Haider & Åström, 2017) and that systematic literature reviews risk being compromised (Dadkhah et al., 2017). It has also been highlighted that Google Scholar, in particular, can be and has been exploited for manipulating the evidence base for politically charged issues and to fuel conspiracy narratives (Tripodi et al., 2023). Both concerns are likely to be magnified in the future, increasing the risk of what we suggest calling evidence hacking —the strategic and coordinated malicious manipulation of society’s evidence base.
The authority of quality-controlled research as evidence to support legislation, policy, politics, and other forms of decision-making is undermined by the presence of undeclared GPT-fabricated content in publications professing to be scientific. Due to the large number of archives, repositories, mirror sites, and shadow libraries to which they spread, there is a clear risk that GPT-fabricated, questionable papers will reach audiences even after a possible retraction. There are considerable technical difficulties involved in identifying and tracing computer-fabricated papers (Cabanac & Labbé, 2021; Dadkhah et al., 2023; Jones, 2024), not to mention preventing and curbing their spread and uptake.
However, as the rise of the so-called anti-vaxx movement during the COVID-19 pandemic and the ongoing obstruction and denial of climate change show, retracting erroneous publications often fuels conspiracies and increases the following of these movements rather than stopping them. To illustrate this mechanism, climate deniers frequently question established scientific consensus by pointing to other, supposedly scientific, studies that support their claims. Usually, these are poorly executed, not peer-reviewed, based on obsolete data, or even fraudulent (Dunlap & Brulle, 2020). A similar strategy is successful in the alternative epistemic world of the global anti-vaccination movement (Carrion, 2018) and the persistence of flawed and questionable publications in the scientific record already poses significant problems for health research, policy, and lawmakers, and thus for society as a whole (Littell et al., 2024). Considering that a person’s support for “doing your own research” is associated with increased mistrust in scientific institutions (Chinn & Hasell, 2023), it will be of utmost importance to anticipate and consider such backfiring effects already when designing a technical solution, when suggesting industry or legal regulation, and in the planning of educational measures.
Recommendations
Solutions should be based on simultaneous considerations of technical, educational, and regulatory approaches, as well as incentives, including social ones, across the entire research infrastructure. Paying attention to how these approaches and incentives relate to each other can help identify points and mechanisms for disruption. Recognizing fraudulent academic papers must happen alongside understanding how they reach their audiences and what reasons there might be for some of these papers successfully “sticking around.” A possible way to mitigate some of the risks associated with GPT-fabricated scholarly texts finding their way into academic search engine results would be to provide filtering options for facets such as indexed journals, gray literature, peer-review, and similar on the interface of publicly available academic search engines. Furthermore, evaluation tools for indexed journals 3 Such as LiU Journal CheckUp, https://ep.liu.se/JournalCheckup/default.aspx?lang=eng . could be integrated into the graphical user interfaces and the crawlers of these academic search engines. To enable accountability, it is important that the index (database) of such a search engine is populated according to criteria that are transparent, open to scrutiny, and appropriate to the workings of science and other forms of academic research. Moreover, considering that Google Scholar has no real competitor, there is a strong case for establishing a freely accessible, non-specialized academic search engine that is not run for commercial reasons but for reasons of public interest. Such measures, together with educational initiatives aimed particularly at policymakers, science communicators, journalists, and other media workers, will be crucial to reducing the possibilities for and effects of malicious manipulation or evidence hacking. It is important not to present this as a technical problem that exists only because of AI text generators but to relate it to the wider concerns in which it is embedded. These range from a largely dysfunctional scholarly publishing system (Haider & Åström, 2017) and academia’s “publish or perish” paradigm to Google’s near-monopoly and ideological battles over the control of information and ultimately knowledge. Any intervention is likely to have systemic effects; these effects need to be considered and assessed in advance and, ideally, followed up on.
Our study focused on a selection of papers that were easily recognizable as fraudulent. We used this relatively small sample as a magnifying glass to examine, delineate, and understand a problem that goes beyond the scope of the sample itself, which however points towards larger concerns that require further investigation. The work of ongoing whistleblowing initiatives 4 Such as Academ-AI, https://www.academ-ai.info/ , and Retraction Watch, https://retractionwatch.com/papers-and-peer-reviews-with-evidence-of-chatgpt-writing/ . , recent media reports of journal closures (Subbaraman, 2024), or GPT-related changes in word use and writing style (Cabanac et al., 2021; Stokel-Walker, 2024) suggest that we only see the tip of the iceberg. There are already more sophisticated cases (Dadkhah et al., 2023) as well as cases involving fabricated images (Gu et al., 2022). Our analysis shows that questionable and potentially manipulative GPT-fabricated papers permeate the research infrastructure and are likely to become a widespread phenomenon. Our findings underline that the risk of fake scientific papers being used to maliciously manipulate evidence (see Dadkhah et al., 2017) must be taken seriously. Manipulation may involve undeclared automatic summaries of texts, inclusion in literature reviews, explicit scientific claims, or the concealment of errors in studies so that they are difficult to detect in peer review. However, the mere possibility of these things happening is a significant risk in its own right that can be strategically exploited and will have ramifications for trust in and perception of science. Society’s methods of evaluating sources and the foundations of media and information literacy are under threat and public trust in science is at risk of further erosion, with far-reaching consequences for society in dealing with information disorders. To address this multifaceted problem, we first need to understand why it exists and proliferates.
Finding 1: 139 GPT-fabricated, questionable papers were found and listed as regular results on the Google Scholar results page. Non-indexed journals dominate.
Most questionable papers we found were in non-indexed journals or were working papers, but we did also find some in established journals, publications, conferences, and repositories. We found a total of 139 papers with a suspected deceptive use of ChatGPT or similar LLM applications (see Table 1). Out of these, 19 were in indexed journals, 89 were in non-indexed journals, 19 were student papers found in university databases, and 12 were working papers (mostly in preprint databases). Table 1 divides these papers into categories. Health and environment papers made up around 34% (47) of the sample. Of these, 66% were present in non-indexed journals.
Indexed journals* | 5 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 19 |
Non-indexed journals | 18 | 18 | 13 | 40 | 89 |
Student papers | 4 | 3 | 1 | 11 | 19 |
Working papers | 5 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 12 |
Total | 32 | 27 | 20 | 60 | 139 |
Finding 2: GPT-fabricated, questionable papers are disseminated online, permeating the research infrastructure for scholarly communication, often in multiple copies. Applied topics with practical implications dominate.
The 20 papers concerning health-related issues are distributed across 20 unique domains, accounting for 46 URLs. The 27 papers dealing with environmental issues can be found across 26 unique domains, accounting for 56 URLs. Most of the identified papers exist in multiple copies and have already spread to several archives, repositories, and social media. It would be difficult, or impossible, to remove them from the scientific record.
As apparent from Table 2, GPT-fabricated, questionable papers are seeping into most parts of the online research infrastructure for scholarly communication. Platforms on which identified papers have appeared include ResearchGate, ORCiD, Journal of Population Therapeutics and Clinical Pharmacology (JPTCP), Easychair, Frontiers, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineer (IEEE), and X/Twitter. Thus, even if they are retracted from their original source, it will prove very difficult to track, remove, or even just mark them up on other platforms. Moreover, unless regulated, Google Scholar will enable their continued and most likely unlabeled discoverability.
Environment | researchgate.net (13) | orcid.org (4) | easychair.org (3) | ijope.com* (3) | publikasiindonesia.id (3) |
Health | researchgate.net (15) | ieee.org (4) | twitter.com (3) | jptcp.com** (2) | frontiersin.org (2) |
A word rain visualization (Centre for Digital Humanities Uppsala, 2023), which combines word prominences through TF-IDF 5 Term frequency–inverse document frequency , a method for measuring the significance of a word in a document compared to its frequency across all documents in a collection. scores with semantic similarity of the full texts of our sample of GPT-generated articles that fall into the “Environment” and “Health” categories, reflects the two categories in question. However, as can be seen in Figure 1, it also reveals overlap and sub-areas. The y-axis shows word prominences through word positions and font sizes, while the x-axis indicates semantic similarity. In addition to a certain amount of overlap, this reveals sub-areas, which are best described as two distinct events within the word rain. The event on the left bundles terms related to the development and management of health and healthcare with “challenges,” “impact,” and “potential of artificial intelligence”emerging as semantically related terms. Terms related to research infrastructures, environmental, epistemic, and technological concepts are arranged further down in the same event (e.g., “system,” “climate,” “understanding,” “knowledge,” “learning,” “education,” “sustainable”). A second distinct event further to the right bundles terms associated with fish farming and aquatic medicinal plants, highlighting the presence of an aquaculture cluster. Here, the prominence of groups of terms such as “used,” “model,” “-based,” and “traditional” suggests the presence of applied research on these topics. The two events making up the word rain visualization, are linked by a less dominant but overlapping cluster of terms related to “energy” and “water.”
The bar chart of the terms in the paper subset (see Figure 2) complements the word rain visualization by depicting the most prominent terms in the full texts along the y-axis. Here, word prominences across health and environment papers are arranged descendingly, where values outside parentheses are TF-IDF values (relative frequencies) and values inside parentheses are raw term frequencies (absolute frequencies).
Finding 3: Google Scholar presents results from quality-controlled and non-controlled citation databases on the same interface, providing unfiltered access to GPT-fabricated questionable papers.
Google Scholar’s central position in the publicly accessible scholarly communication infrastructure, as well as its lack of standards, transparency, and accountability in terms of inclusion criteria, has potentially serious implications for public trust in science. This is likely to exacerbate the already-known potential to exploit Google Scholar for evidence hacking (Tripodi et al., 2023) and will have implications for any attempts to retract or remove fraudulent papers from their original publication venues. Any solution must consider the entirety of the research infrastructure for scholarly communication and the interplay of different actors, interests, and incentives.
We searched and scraped Google Scholar using the Python library Scholarly (Cholewiak et al., 2023) for papers that included specific phrases known to be common responses from ChatGPT and similar applications with the same underlying model (GPT3.5 or GPT4): “as of my last knowledge update” and/or “I don’t have access to real-time data” (see Appendix A). This facilitated the identification of papers that likely used generative AI to produce text, resulting in 227 retrieved papers. The papers’ bibliographic information was automatically added to a spreadsheet and downloaded into Zotero. 6 An open-source reference manager, https://zotero.org .
We employed multiple coding (Barbour, 2001) to classify the papers based on their content. First, we jointly assessed whether the paper was suspected of fraudulent use of ChatGPT (or similar) based on how the text was integrated into the papers and whether the paper was presented as original research output or the AI tool’s role was acknowledged. Second, in analyzing the content of the papers, we continued the multiple coding by classifying the fraudulent papers into four categories identified during an initial round of analysis—health, environment, computing, and others—and then determining which subjects were most affected by this issue (see Table 1). Out of the 227 retrieved papers, 88 papers were written with legitimate and/or declared use of GPTs (i.e., false positives, which were excluded from further analysis), and 139 papers were written with undeclared and/or fraudulent use (i.e., true positives, which were included in further analysis). The multiple coding was conducted jointly by all authors of the present article, who collaboratively coded and cross-checked each other’s interpretation of the data simultaneously in a shared spreadsheet file. This was done to single out coding discrepancies and settle coding disagreements, which in turn ensured methodological thoroughness and analytical consensus (see Barbour, 2001). Redoing the category coding later based on our established coding schedule, we achieved an intercoder reliability (Cohen’s kappa) of 0.806 after eradicating obvious differences.
The ranking algorithm of Google Scholar prioritizes highly cited and older publications (Martín-Martín et al., 2016). Therefore, the position of the articles on the search engine results pages was not particularly informative, considering the relatively small number of results in combination with the recency of the publications. Only the query “as of my last knowledge update” had more than two search engine result pages. On those, questionable articles with undeclared use of GPTs were evenly distributed across all result pages (min: 4, max: 9, mode: 8), with the proportion of undeclared use being slightly higher on average on later search result pages.
To understand how the papers making fraudulent use of generative AI were disseminated online, we programmatically searched for the paper titles (with exact string matching) in Google Search from our local IP address (see Appendix B) using the googlesearch – python library(Vikramaditya, 2020). We manually verified each search result to filter out false positives—results that were not related to the paper—and then compiled the most prominent URLs by field. This enabled the identification of other platforms through which the papers had been spread. We did not, however, investigate whether copies had spread into SciHub or other shadow libraries, or if they were referenced in Wikipedia.
We used descriptive statistics to count the prevalence of the number of GPT-fabricated papers across topics and venues and top domains by subject. The pandas software library for the Python programming language (The pandas development team, 2024) was used for this part of the analysis. Based on the multiple coding, paper occurrences were counted in relation to their categories, divided into indexed journals, non-indexed journals, student papers, and working papers. The schemes, subdomains, and subdirectories of the URL strings were filtered out while top-level domains and second-level domains were kept, which led to normalizing domain names. This, in turn, allowed the counting of domain frequencies in the environment and health categories. To distinguish word prominences and meanings in the environment and health-related GPT-fabricated questionable papers, a semantically-aware word cloud visualization was produced through the use of a word rain (Centre for Digital Humanities Uppsala, 2023) for full-text versions of the papers. Font size and y-axis positions indicate word prominences through TF-IDF scores for the environment and health papers (also visualized in a separate bar chart with raw term frequencies in parentheses), and words are positioned along the x-axis to reflect semantic similarity (Skeppstedt et al., 2024), with an English Word2vec skip gram model space (Fares et al., 2017). An English stop word list was used, along with a manually produced list including terms such as “https,” “volume,” or “years.”
Haider, J., Söderström, K. R., Ekström, B., & Rödl, M. (2024). GPT-fabricated scientific papers on Google Scholar: Key features, spread, and implications for preempting evidence manipulation. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review . https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-156
Antkare, I. (2020). Ike Antkare, his publications, and those of his disciples. In M. Biagioli & A. Lippman (Eds.), Gaming the metrics (pp. 177–200). The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11087.003.0018
Barbour, R. S. (2001). Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: A case of the tail wagging the dog? BMJ , 322 (7294), 1115–1117. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115
Bom, H.-S. H. (2023). Exploring the opportunities and challenges of ChatGPT in academic writing: A roundtable discussion. Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging , 57 (4), 165–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13139-023-00809-2
Cabanac, G., & Labbé, C. (2021). Prevalence of nonsensical algorithmically generated papers in the scientific literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology , 72 (12), 1461–1476. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24495
Cabanac, G., Labbé, C., & Magazinov, A. (2021). Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science. Evidence of critical issues affecting established journals . arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2107.06751
Carrion, M. L. (2018). “You need to do your research”: Vaccines, contestable science, and maternal epistemology. Public Understanding of Science , 27 (3), 310–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662517728024
Centre for Digital Humanities Uppsala (2023). CDHUppsala/word-rain [Computer software]. https://github.com/CDHUppsala/word-rain
Chinn, S., & Hasell, A. (2023). Support for “doing your own research” is associated with COVID-19 misperceptions and scientific mistrust. Harvard Kennedy School (HSK) Misinformation Review, 4 (3). https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-117
Cholewiak, S. A., Ipeirotis, P., Silva, V., & Kannawadi, A. (2023). SCHOLARLY: Simple access to Google Scholar authors and citation using Python (1.5.0) [Computer software]. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5764801
Dadkhah, M., Lagzian, M., & Borchardt, G. (2017). Questionable papers in citation databases as an issue for literature review. Journal of Cell Communication and Signaling , 11 (2), 181–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12079-016-0370-6
Dadkhah, M., Oermann, M. H., Hegedüs, M., Raman, R., & Dávid, L. D. (2023). Detection of fake papers in the era of artificial intelligence. Diagnosis , 10 (4), 390–397. https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2023-0090
DeGeurin, M. (2024, March 19). AI-generated nonsense is leaking into scientific journals. Popular Science. https://www.popsci.com/technology/ai-generated-text-scientific-journals/
Dunlap, R. E., & Brulle, R. J. (2020). Sources and amplifiers of climate change denial. In D.C. Holmes & L. M. Richardson (Eds.), Research handbook on communicating climate change (pp. 49–61). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789900408.00013
Fares, M., Kutuzov, A., Oepen, S., & Velldal, E. (2017). Word vectors, reuse, and replicability: Towards a community repository of large-text resources. In J. Tiedemann & N. Tahmasebi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Nordic Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 271–276). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/W17-0237
Google Scholar Help. (n.d.). Inclusion guidelines for webmasters . https://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/inclusion.html
Gu, J., Wang, X., Li, C., Zhao, J., Fu, W., Liang, G., & Qiu, J. (2022). AI-enabled image fraud in scientific publications. Patterns , 3 (7), 100511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2022.100511
Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2020). Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Research Synthesis Methods , 11 (2), 181–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378
Haider, J., & Åström, F. (2017). Dimensions of trust in scholarly communication: Problematizing peer review in the aftermath of John Bohannon’s “Sting” in science. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology , 68 (2), 450–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23669
Huang, J., & Tan, M. (2023). The role of ChatGPT in scientific communication: Writing better scientific review articles. American Journal of Cancer Research , 13 (4), 1148–1154. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10164801/
Jones, N. (2024). How journals are fighting back against a wave of questionable images. Nature , 626 (8000), 697–698. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00372-6
Kitamura, F. C. (2023). ChatGPT is shaping the future of medical writing but still requires human judgment. Radiology , 307 (2), e230171. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.230171
Littell, J. H., Abel, K. M., Biggs, M. A., Blum, R. W., Foster, D. G., Haddad, L. B., Major, B., Munk-Olsen, T., Polis, C. B., Robinson, G. E., Rocca, C. H., Russo, N. F., Steinberg, J. R., Stewart, D. E., Stotland, N. L., Upadhyay, U. D., & Ditzhuijzen, J. van. (2024). Correcting the scientific record on abortion and mental health outcomes. BMJ , 384 , e076518. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-076518
Lund, B. D., Wang, T., Mannuru, N. R., Nie, B., Shimray, S., & Wang, Z. (2023). ChatGPT and a new academic reality: Artificial Intelligence-written research papers and the ethics of the large language models in scholarly publishing. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 74 (5), 570–581. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24750
Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Ayllón, J. M., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2016). Back to the past: On the shoulders of an academic search engine giant. Scientometrics , 107 , 1477–1487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1917-2
Martín-Martín, A., Thelwall, M., Orduna-Malea, E., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2021). Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: A multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations. Scientometrics , 126 (1), 871–906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4
Simon, F. M., Altay, S., & Mercier, H. (2023). Misinformation reloaded? Fears about the impact of generative AI on misinformation are overblown. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review, 4 (5). https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-127
Skeppstedt, M., Ahltorp, M., Kucher, K., & Lindström, M. (2024). From word clouds to Word Rain: Revisiting the classic word cloud to visualize climate change texts. Information Visualization , 23 (3), 217–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/14738716241236188
Swedish Research Council. (2017). Good research practice. Vetenskapsrådet.
Stokel-Walker, C. (2024, May 1.). AI Chatbots Have Thoroughly Infiltrated Scientific Publishing . Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chatbots-have-thoroughly-infiltrated-scientific-publishing/
Subbaraman, N. (2024, May 14). Flood of fake science forces multiple journal closures: Wiley to shutter 19 more journals, some tainted by fraud. The Wall Street Journal . https://www.wsj.com/science/academic-studies-research-paper-mills-journals-publishing-f5a3d4bc
The pandas development team. (2024). pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas (v2.2.2) [Computer software]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10957263
Thorp, H. H. (2023). ChatGPT is fun, but not an author. Science , 379 (6630), 313–313. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adg7879
Tripodi, F. B., Garcia, L. C., & Marwick, A. E. (2023). ‘Do your own research’: Affordance activation and disinformation spread. Information, Communication & Society , 27 (6), 1212–1228. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2023.2245869
Vikramaditya, N. (2020). Nv7-GitHub/googlesearch [Computer software]. https://github.com/Nv7-GitHub/googlesearch
This research has been supported by Mistra, the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research, through the research program Mistra Environmental Communication (Haider, Ekström, Rödl) and the Marcus and Amalia Wallenberg Foundation [2020.0004] (Söderström).
The authors declare no competing interests.
The research described in this article was carried out under Swedish legislation. According to the relevant EU and Swedish legislation (2003:460) on the ethical review of research involving humans (“Ethical Review Act”), the research reported on here is not subject to authorization by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (“etikprövningsmyndigheten”) (SRC, 2017).
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original author and source are properly credited.
All data needed to replicate this study are available at the Harvard Dataverse: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/WUVD8X
The authors wish to thank two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on the article manuscript as well as the editorial group of Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review for their thoughtful feedback and input.
For Better Science
By Leonid Schneider, on research integrity, biomedical ethics and academic publishing
"No paper -- I would wager quite heavily that a large percentage, probably over 90% of papers in the public domain, have errors in them. Whether or not they be known, I would suggest that would be the case." - Prof Martin Bushell
Some years ago, I broke the news about fake science by Richard Hill , former group leader at the University of Portsmouth in UK. Since then, the story achieved some unexpected turns. The university was sued by its former collaborator, the biotech company Innovate Pharmaceuticals , over Hill’s fraud and lost in court. Then it turned out that the expert witness engaged by Hill and Portsmouth was the University of Glasgow professor Martin Bushell , who is indeed in a certain dyslexic way an expert on fake science.
Hill’s fraud was originally recorded on PubPeer by Clare Francis and reported on For Better Science five years ago:
Get ready to meet Dr Richard Hill and his amazing jumping blots. Just don’t stare, or you’ll get hurt.
In February 2024 Shorts , I quoted an announcement published by the law company TaylorWessing on 1 February 2024:
“Innovate Pharmaceuticals Limited v University of Portsmouth Higher Education Corporation [2023] EWHC 2394 (TCC) involved a dispute between the University of Portsmouth (UOP) and Innovate Pharmaceuticals (IPL). […] The trial took place on 2 October 2023, and the judgment was handed down on 12 January 2024, finding that UOP was in breach of its obligation to carry out the research under the agreement with reasonable care and skill. The court found UOP liable in principle for both heads of damage claimed by IPL, but went on to hold that the effect of the liability clause in the research agreement was to limit UOP’s liability to £1 million.”
It was Hill who was to blame. No wonder the university tried to cover up his fraud back then. In July 2023, he had to retract his third paper (the two earlier retractions are listed here );
Richard Hill, Patricia A. Madureira , Bibiana Ferreira , Inês Baptista , Susana Machado , Laura Colaço , Marta Dos Santos , Ningshu Liu , Ana Dopazo , Selma Ugurel , Angyal Adrienn , Endre Kiss-Toth , Murat Isbilen , Ali O. Gure , Wolfgang Link TRIB2 confers resistance to anti-cancer therapy by activating the serine/threonine protein kinase AKT Nature Communications (2017) doi: 10.1038/ncomms14687
“The authors have retracted this article as it has come to their attention that several images were inappropriately processed and duplicated in multiple figures. In particular, the data were duplicated, and in some cases inverted, across several panels in Figures 2c, 2b, 3d and Supplementary Figure 5. Erroneous data were also included in Figure 2e, Supplementary Figure 1 and Supplementary Figure 8. We apologize to the scientific community for any confusion this article may have caused.” Retraction on 19 July 2023:
The Taylor Wessing article continues:
“On 7 July 2016 the parties entered into a written agreement, under which IPL hired OUP to conduct a research programme into the properties of IP1877B, also known as Glioprin™ (the drug), for the treatment of brain tumours (the contract). The research programme was to be undertaken under the direction of Dr Richard Hill, the principal investigator and an employee of UOP at the time. […] In August 2018 Dr Hill allegedly made numerous false representations of the research programme results to UOP through both oral and electronic communications. On 26 May 2019 Dr Hill published a scientific paper in the scientific journal ‘Cancer Letters’ (the paper). The paper made representations to the effect that the data obtained from the research programme showed that the drug suppressed resistance to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors. “
That paper’s coauthor is Hill’s wife Patricia Madureira , group leader at the University of Algarve in Faro, Portugal. He worked there before going to Portsmouth and returned after they kicked him out.
K. Mihajluk , C. Simms , M. Reay , P.A. Madureira , A. Howarth , P. Murray , S. Nasser , C.A. Duckworth , D.M. Pritchard , G.J. Pilkington , R. Hill IP1867B suppresses the insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor (IGF1R) ablating epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor resistance in adult high grade gliomas . Cancer Letters (2019) doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2019.05.028
Back in 2019, the University of Portsmouth celebrated “ The breakthrough ” for “ future treatments of brain tumours ” with a press release and announced a clinical trial, all while that paper was being debunked on PubPeer.
In August 2019, Hill admitted some mistakes on PubPeer . At the same time, he was applauded on Retraction Watch for his allegedly self-initiated retraction of an Oncotarget paper Hill et al 2011 , where he promised: “I do not think that there will be any more retractions for problematic images. ” That was of course wishful thinking.
In October 2019, the Cancer Letters paper received a Corrigendum :
“In the article above, we, the authors, discovered that a single microscopy panel was inadvertently placed in Figure 1f, using the SEBTA-023 panel twice instead of the SEBTA-003 representative image. We discovered that an actin western blot loading control data associated with Figure 3a was also incorrectly placed in Figure 5i. We retrieved the original actin western blot data linked to Figure 5i and corrected this error. Neither correction alter the conclusions of the original paper; however, we sincerely apologize for any confusion that this may have caused.”
Turned out, the “ raw data ” he provided with that Corrigendum was fraudulent, Hill submitted an unrelated western blot for “raw data”. Later on, Elisabeth Bik found more issues with Hill’s “raw data”:
The Retraction was published on 1 June 2021:
“The Editor and Publisher received a letter from the University of Portsmouth alerting us to an investigation into alleged research misconduct. The University concluded their investigation with external experts and determined that misconduct did take place in relation to the research involved in this paper. Upon our separate investigation, it has been determined that the paper headline relies on showing that there was considerable reduction of IGF1R, IL6R and EGFR post treatment in all cell lines. During review, it was determined that this cannot be concluded from the presented data. […] The corrigendum ( https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canlet.2019.10.002 ) issue is with respect to the Supplemental Figure 6i EGFR, particularly panel IP1867B. The Corrigendum states that the left part is a cut out of the very right part. If so, the bands for IP1867B should show the same staining pattern – but they do not. Also, in the Corrigendum, there are incorrect mentions between day 14 in the Figure and day 19 in the Figure legend. All authors were informed of the retraction in advance. Drs. Pritchard and Duckworth agreed to the retraction. The corresponding author, Dr Hill, did not agree to the retraction. No response had been received from Drs. Mihajluk, Simms, Reay, Madureira, Howarth, Murray, Nasser and Pilkinton at the time of the retraction being published.”
Hill tried to prevent the retraction. The court documents available to me reference a letter from Cancer Letters to Hill:
“Thank you for your quick response and acknowledgment of our decision. We appreciate your time in sending further explanation, however, our decision to retract is final. […] We have received two more messages […] As more concerns and allegations are raised, it is clear to us that this paper cannot stand and we will move forward with the retraction in the coming days.”
As the retraction notice and court documents confirm, Hill was found guilty of research misconduct by the Portsmouth disciplinary panel in early 2020. The university may have gone bankrupt had the plaintiff been awarded full damages, but Portsmouth got off with paying merely 1 million. The lawsuit can be found here .
What was not in the public domain so far, was whom the University of Portsmouth engaged as their expert witness to defend Hill’s fraud.
It was Martin Bushell , Professor of Cancer Biology at the University of Glasgow and its Beatson Institute for Cancer Research and Senior Group Leader at CRUK Scotland Institute, also in Glasgow. I obtained a transcript of Bushell’s court testimony (full disclosure: source is Innovate Pharma, but I never received any money from them).
To certify his expertise, Bushell was asked by the Portsmouth’s lawyer Clare Dixon : “ how many western blots would you say you have done in your career? ” His reply:
“ So, I have calculated that number based solely on my PhD work, and I have done many years since then, and that number is somewhere in the region of 14,000, just for my three years of my PhD. “
Innovate’s lawyer Thomas Roe later calculated that it must make “89 western blots per week, assuming you did not have any time off at all.” Bushell clarified: “ in total I was doing 24 blots per day.”
Anyone who ever worked in a lab and at least saw a protein gel being run and blotted will know that Bushell is full of crap with his 24 blots per day.
Well anyway, here is how Bushell used to do western blots as PhD student and postdoc of Michael Clemens in London:
Michael J Clemens , Martin Bushell, Simon J Morley Degradation of eukaryotic polypeptide chain initiation factor (eIF) 4G in response to induction of apoptosis in human lymphoma cell lines Oncogene (1998) doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1202227
Or this, flagged on PubPeer in 2018:
Simon J. Morley, Ian Jeffrey , Martin Bushell, Virginia M. Pain , Michael J. Clemens Differential requirements for caspase-8 activity in the mechanism of phosphorylation of eIF2alpha, cleavage of eIF4GI and signaling events associated with the inhibition of protein synthesis in apoptotic Jurkat T cells FEBS Letters (2000) doi: 10.1016/s0014-5793(00)01805-6
This was flagged on PubPeer in 2013 and visualised in 2017, enjoy the intricate fabrication:
Martin Bushell, Wendy Wood , Gillian Carpenter , Virginia M. Pain , Simon J. Morley , Michael J. Clemens Disruption of the interaction of mammalian protein synthesis eukaryotic initiation factor 4B with the poly(A)-binding protein by caspase- and viral protease-mediated cleavages Journal of Biological Chemistry (2001) doi: 10.1074/jbc.m100384200
Indeed, with Photoshop one can indeed easily produce 24 western blots per day!
In court, Bushell was asked to opine of Hill’s manipulations. Like, this reuse of a blot for two totally different experiments in Fig 5(i) from Hill’s Cancer Letters paper:
Harmless mistake, according to Bushell:
“ Nothing I have observed in relation to this mistake indicates any dishonesty by the authors of the Cancer Letters Paper or any intention to mislead Innovate or any other readers of the Cancer Letters Paper. “
And anyway, Hill didn’t actually have to publish any raw data, so whatever fraud was found there doesn’t count, as Bushell explained:
“ I want to remind you he has put these in voluntarily as well so this is very helpful of Hill to have put these uncropped blots into the paper. “
The blot from Cancer Letters paper was reused in Howarth et al 2019 paper in Translational Oncology . It was fraudulent also:
Alison Howarth , Claire Simms , Nitesh Kerai , Olivia Allen , Karina Mihajluk , Patricia A. Madureira , Giannis Sokratous , Simon Cragg, Sang Y. Lee , Andy D. Morley , Ashkan Keyoumars , Paul A. Cox , Geoffrey J. Pilkington , Richard Hill DIVERSet JAG Compounds Inhibit Topoisomerase II and Are Effective Against Adult and Pediatric High-Grade Gliomas Translational Oncology (2019) doi: 10.1016/j.tranon.2019.07.007
The paper was fixed with a stealth correction because Hill claimed to have spotted the problems all by himself, “ prior to any PubPeer comments “. Bushell thought it was all fine:
“. ..this criticism does not relate to any error or mistake in the Cancer Letters Paper at all, but an error in a pre-publication version of an entirely different paper, which error was corrected during the review phase prior to publication. [….] Nothing […] indicates any dishonesty by the authors of the Cancer Letters Paper or any intention to mislead readers of the Cancer Letters Paper. “
In fact, Bushell explained, western blots get accidentally flipped all the time, during cropping:
“ you might also crop it first and then flip it round, or accidentally flip it round. “
As I mentioned above, in his fraudulent Cancer Letters correction Hill published irrelevant western blots as alleged raw data, and was caught out:
Bushell’s expert opinion was to say SO WHAT:
“ In the paper he has put a version of this figure. In the supplementary, he has put another version of this figure. This could have been by accident, completely. Absolutely. “
And for another instance of data manipulation in Cancer Letters , Bushell blamed an unnamed student:
“ this mistake is likely to have occurred as a result of a student working under Dr Hill’s supervision having copied and pasted the same image twice. Whilst this mistake should have been picked up by Dr Hill when reviewing the paper and the individual blot images, and I would also expect this mistake to have been identified during the pre-publication peer review and editorial review, I can see how this mistake could have occurred and such errors occur relatively frequently.” “
Yes, the stupid student did it:
“ you are doing two experiments at the same point and then you develop and process those western blots at the same time. They could be from two separate experiments on different papers happening at the same point. Those images would then be in one file and that can then lead to mistakes whereby let us say a student takes one of those blots and processes it into a figure and the supervisor, or Hill in this particular instance, may take accidentally — I am just putting it as a scenario here — the same blot and make it into another figure thinking it is from a different experiment. So it is possible.”
The final expert opinion on Hill’s falsifications was:
“ if we were to take all of the data into account and perfectly summarise it, I think we would still come out with the same conclusions of this paper. “
Bushell said much more outrageous stuff like that, but I think it is best illustrated with his own papers. Flagged on PubPeer already in 2013:
Julie A. Moreno , Helois Radford , Diego Peretti , Joern R. Steinert , Nicholas Verity , Maria Guerra Martin , Mark Halliday , Jason Morgan , David Dinsdale , Catherine A. Ortori , David A. Barrett , Pavel Tsaytler , Anne Bertolotti , Anne E. Willis , Martin Bushell, Giovanna R. Mallucci Sustained translational repression by eIF2α-P mediates prion neurodegeneration Nature (2012) doi: 10.1038/nature11058
In July 2014, only “ an error in Supplementary Fig. 1b ” was corrected , the rest ignored. One could use this quote from Bushell he used to defend Hill:
“it is possible for cropped western blot images to be mixed up if they are not labelled correctly or clearly, and this can lead to incorrect images being used or incorrect orientation of the blot.”
Bushell’s collaboration with Anne E. Willis , Director of the MRC Toxicology Unit at the University of Cambridge, was a resounding success. Willis is a role model, in 2017 she was awarded the Order of the British Empire “ for services to biomedical sciences and supporting the careers of women scientists “. Be invited to study her PubPeer record to understand the nature of her services to science. Here an example:
Here an earlier Willis-Bushell collaboration, which last author Kenneth Siddle used to be Vice-Master of the Churchill College at Cambridge University:
Keith A. Spriggs , Laura C. Cobbold , Simon H. Ridley , Mark Coldwell , Andrew Bottley , Martin Bushell, Anne E. Willis, Kenneth Siddle The human insulin receptor mRNA contains a functional internal ribosome entry segment Nucleic Acids Research (2009) doi: 10.1093/nar/gkp623
In January 2016, Siddle shared some emails with Clare Francis, blaming Willis’s postdoc Laura Cobbold. In February 2014, Willis wrote to the editor of Nucleic Acids Research :
“ The band shifts in question were carried out in my lab by an experimental officer who left science and the UK in 2005 and I am no longer in contact with her. When I left Nottingham, due to the University’s rules all, original data and laboratory books had to remain behind and our computers were wiped. […] That said, this was a time when I was still active in the laboratory and I often carried out some of the repeat experiments. Very fortunately I did take my own lab books with me to Leicester and I have found that I carried out two repeats of these experiments in around January 2006. “
The bad student excuse was plagiarised by Bushell in Hill’s defence:
“ the image could be put, as he stated, on a memory stick, so copied on to a memory stick and then copied on to his computer and the student may make a figure out of that same image on a different computer at a different time, so they are just images and they can be made into figures at different points. There is no reason why they cannot be. It is just a duplication of an image that is electronic and then it can be used on several different computers at the same time. “
Willis suggested a Corrigendum, but the editor replied to “ confirm that these support the results and conclusion of your article “, that there was “ no evidence of unethical manipulation of panels 3a, 4b and 5b “, and that the editors “ do not think it necessary to publish a corrigendum “.
Eventually, Nucleic Acids Research changed leadership and policies. Siddle, Willis and Bushell had to publish that Corrigendum 8 years later, in January 2022:
“The Editors were alerted in 2014 that some Electrophoretic Mobility Shift Assays (EMSAs) depicted in Fig4Bii showed unusual levels of similarity (panels 3a, 4b and 5d). The journal investigated the matter at the time and did not find conclusive evidence to support the allegations. The same allegations were brought to the Editors’ attention again in 2021. […] The corresponding authors acknowledge with regret errors in the preparation of panels 3a, 4b and 5d of Figure 4B (ii)”
The Correction also mentioned what Willis: original raw data unavailable, but the authors had some “ surviving images of replicate parallel experiments conducted around the same time in 2005/6 “.
Bushell and Willis again, flagged by Clare Francis in 2014 and visualised in 2022 by Cheshire:
Keith A. Spriggs , Laura C. Cobbold , Catherine L. Jopling , Rebecca E. Cooper , Lindsay A. Wilson , Mark Stoneley , Mark J. Coldwell , Didier Poncet , Ya-Ching Shen , Simon J. Morley , Martin Bushell, Anne E. Willis Canonical initiation factor requirements of the Myc family of internal ribosome entry segments Molecular and Cellular Biology (2009) doi: 10.1128/mcb.01283-08
Bushell’s excuse for Hill fits here, I guess:
“ these mistakes — and I am not trying to say that they are not important because they are important — but these are all on the control blots. Control blots by definition do look very similar and mistakes can happen in those situations. It is rather remarkable that when you look through a lot of publications out there where there are mistakes of this type, it does tend to be in the control lanes, in the control blots for those. So this is not just a mistake that is just occurring in Hill’s papers. Lots of papers have similar types of mistakes because these blots do look very similar “
On PubPeer since 2013, corrected merely 11 years later:
L C Cobbold , L A Wilson , K Sawicka , H A King , A V Kondrashov , K A Spriggs , M Bushell , A E Willis Upregulated c-myc expression in multiple myeloma by internal ribosome entry results from increased interactions with and expression of PTB-1 and YB-1 Oncogene (2010) doi: 10.1038/onc.2010.31 Fig 1B
For Bushell, this must have been perfectly “legitimate”, if one follows his arguments in Hill testimony:
“ manipulation, as you say, is taking these images and then doing, using them in different context. As I have stated before, that can happen legitimately and inadvertently — not legitimately but inadvertently, by accident, so it is possible that that can take place.”
The Correction from 13 September 2024 credited the authors for having “ noted an error in Figure 1b ” which they fix by having “ referred back to original data ” and recovered the “ the correct panel for Domain 1 -1-234/YB-1 “. Naturally, “ this correction has no impact on the conclusions of the paper “. At least they didn’t blame Cobbold again.
The next paper by Bushell and Willis, flagged on PubPeer in 2013, is uncorrectable. It has the same lead author as the papers above. It is Willis’s other postdoc Keith Spriggs , now associate professor at the University of Nottingham:
Laura C. Cobbold , Keith A. Spriggs , Stephen J. Haines , Helen C. Dobbyn , Christopher Hayes , Cornelia H. De Moor , Kathryn S. Lilley , Martin Bushell, Anne E. Willis Identification of internal ribosome entry segment (IRES)-trans-acting factors for the Myc family of IRESs Molecular and Cellular Biology (2008) doi: 10.1128/mcb.01298-07
(right) Elisabeth Bik : “ Figure 4A : Pink boxes: the c-myc bands in i) and ii) look very similar, albeit shown in mirror image (vertical mirroring)”
Maybe this Bushell statement fits:
“I think that especially looking at what happened with the final versions of this paper and uploading, I think that there is also the possibility that a lot of these figures were made in a rush last minute and mistakes were possibly made at that stage as well.”
Most of the below evidence was on PubPeer before 2019. Is this why the University of Portsmouth recruited Bushell as expert witness? Professors Bushell, Willis and Spriggs:
Ian R. Powley , Alexander Kondrashov , Lucy A. Young , Helen C. Dobbyn , Kirsti Hill , Ian G. Cannell , Mark Stoneley, Yi-Wen Kong , Julia A. Cotes , Graeme C.M. Smith , Ron Wek, Christopher Hayes , Timothy W. Gant, Keith A. Spriggs, Martin Bushell, Anne E. Willis Translational reprogramming following UVB irradiation is mediated by DNA-PKcs and allows selective recruitment to the polysomes of mRNAs encoding DNA repair enzymes Genes & Development (2009) doi: 10.1101/gad.516509
If needed, Bushell can reuse his excuse for Hill’s fraud:
“ The more mistakes you have, the more lack of reasonable care there is. That is clear. We all know this. But each of these individually can be made by accident and completely legitimately. It is not — normally it would not be the type of error that, you know — every paper has errors in it, I would say. I know that I said 90% and I think it probably is 90%, maybe even higher. But I really do believe that errors do crop into papers .”
Yes, especially Bushell’s own papers are affected.
Tatyana Chernova , Fiona A Murphy , Sara Galavotti , Xiao-Ming Sun , Ian R Powley , Stefano Grosso , Anja Schinwald , Joaquin Zacarias-Cabeza , Kate M Dudek , David Dinsdale , John Le Quesne , Jonathan Bennett , Apostolos Nakas , Peter Greaves , Craig A Poland , Ken Donaldson , Martin Bushell, Anne E Willis, Marion MacFarlane Long-Fiber Carbon Nanotubes Replicate Asbestos-Induced Mesothelioma with Disruption of the Tumor Suppressor Gene Cdkn2a (Ink4a/Arf) Current Biology (2017) doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2017.09.007
Elisabeth Bik : “ Figure 1A :
But then again, as Bushell said:
“ No paper — I would wager quite heavily that a large percentage, probably over 90% of papers in the public domain, have errors in them. Whether or not they be known, I would suggest that would be the case. “
There is indeed a certain appeal to a theory that because so much data manipulation is being found, this must mean that data manipulation is actually an integral part of scientific process. Bushell seems to believe it.
Well, here is something:
Bushell claims to suffer from “ a long-term condition “, which in his case is dyslexia. It can’t be very severe: for example he wrote a report for the University of Portsmouth whitewashing Hill. Somewhat funnily, Bushell is not the only scholar suffering from this condition: the Israeli microbiologist Ilana Kolodkin-Gal also uses the dyslexia excuse to explain her compulsive data manipulation. Read here:
“Don’t let online controversies and aggressive blogs easily ruin everything you’ve worked for to build your reputation […] Whether the image issue is innocent or intentional, the outcome is still the same. Bloggers will attack that publication with image issues, which will damage your reputation and may even lead to a costly investigation. We are…
Finally, a recent paper from Bushell’s lab, flagged by Bik in September 2023. Note that it is not just a simple image duplication, as brightness was changed. Bushell had to publish a correction one month before his court testimony in Hill’s case:
Aldo S Bader , Janna Luessing , Ben R Hawley , George L Skalka , Wei-Ting Lu , Noel F Lowndes, Martin Bushell DDX17 is required for efficient DSB repair at DNA:RNA hybrid deficient loci Nucleic Acids Research (2022) doi: 10.1093/nar/gkac843
I contacted Bushell, Willis and the University of Portsmouth for a comment. They didn’t reply. But even when specifically asked to, the university never denied having known of Bushell’s PubPeer record and having paid his as their expert witness exactly because of this PubPeer evidence of his skills.
Type your email…
Subscribe to For Better Science
If you are interested to support my work, you can leave here a small tip of $5. Or several of small tips, just increase the amount as you like (2x=€10; 5x=€25). Your generous patronage of my journalism will be most appreciated!
All very British! Many point out, with evidence, that Italy is full of crap, the truth is that the British are better at hiding things. Even though the Empire has gone U.K. establishments still run colonial regimes.
Greece was never part of the Empire, but in effect, did become part of the Empire after WWII. The British army helped the Greek central government win the civil war.
Nice modern example from the world’s second oldest university.
PubPeer – Autophagosome Proteins LC3A, LC3B and LC3C Have Distinct Sub…
Older, but still within living memory.
PubPeer – Herpes Simplex Virus Type 1 Blocks the Apoptotic Host Cell D…
“ Control blots by definition do look very similar and mistakes can happen in those situations. ”
I don’t think that any more true than for other proteins. Control proteins are chosen because they have a relatively similar amount of protein, but that doesn’t mean that the blots themselves should look more similar than other blots.
“Bushell’s collaboration with Anne E. Willis , Director of the MRC Toxicology Unit at the University of Cambridge, was a resounding success.”
Hats off the Martin Bushell and Anne E Willis!!!
Making it up is winning strategy. By the time anybody notices it is years later, and by the time the journals decide to do anything, such as issue corrections, or retractions, it may be years later, if ever! Such a successful strategy. The lag phase by be longer than our lives.
Apart from the problematic data: PubPeer – Search publications and join the conversation.
the more astute think that “mammalian IRES sequences”, Anne E Willis’ main topic, shtick, are artefacts of the assays used, i.e. false positives,
and have more conventional explanations.
Splicing mediates the activity of four putative cellular internal ribosome entry sites – PubMed (nih.gov)
False-positive IRESes from Hoxa9 and other genes resulting from errors in mammalian 5′ UTR annotations – PubMed (nih.gov)
Anyway, it’s Britain where you are not listened to if you think “above your station in life”, and where position and titles are still everything. As most know : “you mustn’t say anything”, not that you will go to the gulag, there are no gulags, but that things may not go so swimmingly. Only the foolish will not get the message.
Instead of addressing the illogical nature of their data, the higher-ups will throw their “reputations” at it, and the university will try to cover up the problem if it involves big, important people with more money than they have.
A case in point. Freedom of Information Act 2000 (Section 50) (ico.org.uk)
Top geneticist ‘should resign’ over his team’s laboratory fraud | Research | The Guardian
What it is is that the U.K., especially London (party city), is very attractive to foreign students, who can be charged 3 to 5 times the amount a British student can be charged. It doesn’t matter that the window dressing hides many warts. The window dressing is the message. Any services to the window dressing are more than welcome by the government.
Dependence on China is putting British values at risk in higher education, says Lord Patten (msn.com)
“The Telegraph analysis shows they contribute around £5.9bn to the UK university sector through tuition fees alone.”
That’s a lot of money!
Any university with any sense senses would ignore human rights abuses for £5.9bn. How else to pay its higher-ups?
I wonder if English being the international language has done the U.K. more harm than good.
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Reading Time: 14 minutes In this article I will show you how to write a research paper using the four LEAP writing steps. The LEAP academic writing approach is a step-by-step method for turning research results into a published paper.. The LEAP writing approach has been the cornerstone of the 70 + research papers that I have authored and the 3700+ citations these paper have accumulated within ...
Table of contents. Step 1: Introduce your topic. Step 2: Describe the background. Step 3: Establish your research problem. Step 4: Specify your objective (s) Step 5: Map out your paper. Research paper introduction examples. Frequently asked questions about the research paper introduction.
Dr. Michelle Harris, Dr. Janet Batzli,Biocore. This section provides guidelines on how to construct a solid introduction to a scientific paper including background information, study question, biological rationale, hypothesis, and general approach. If the Introduction is done well, there should be no question in the reader's mind why and on ...
Regardless of the specific course being taught, this guide can be used as a reference when writing scientific papers, independent research projects, and laboratory reports. For students looking for more in-depth advice, additional resources are listed at the end of the guide.
Take concise notes while reading, focusing on information relevant to the essay. Identify the most crucial information and examples that support the argument. Begin writing the essay, considering starting with the middle sections for clarity. Circle back to the introduction and conclusion once the main body is outlined.
Tutorial Essays for Science Subjects. This guide is designed to provide help and advice on scientific writing. Although students studying Medical and Life Sciences are most likely to have to write essays for tutorials at Oxford, it is important all scientists learn to write clearly and concisely to present their data and conclusions.
problem or research area . 2. Present the background context. of the work . 3. Introduce/ o. utline of how your research fits into the theoretical framework. established around the area . 4. State . your viewpoint or argument . 1. Explain. different perspectives of the problem . 2. Critically Examine. the material read . Either from . your own ...
Choose a research paper topic. Conduct preliminary research. Develop a thesis statement. Create a research paper outline. Write a first draft of the research paper. Write the introduction. Write a compelling body of text. Write the conclusion. The second draft.
Then, writing the paper and getting it ready for submission may take me 3 to 6 months. I like separating the writing into three phases. The results and the methods go first, as this is where I write what was done and how, and what the outcomes were. In a second phase, I tackle the introduction and refine the results section with input from my ...
Excellent science is an essential ingredient of any great research paper, but concise writing and a clear structure are also crucial. ... IBSA Foundation for scientific research offers 6 ...
Many scientific articles include the following elements: I. Abstract: The abstract should briefly summarize the contents of your article. Be sure to include a quick overview of the focus, results and conclusion of your study. ... If others have performed research on the topic, include a literature review. III.
The scientific paper has developed over the past three centuries into a tool to communicate the results of scientific inquiry. The main audience for scientific papers is extremely specialized. The purpose of these papers is twofold: to present information so that it is easy to retrieve, and to present enough information that the reader can ...
The introduction supplies sufficient background information for the reader to understand and evaluate the experiment you did. It also supplies a rationale for the study. Goals: Present the problem and the proposed solution. Presents nature and scope of the problem investigated. Reviews the pertinent literature to orient the reader.
Conducting scientific and clinical research is only the beginning of the scholarship of discovery. In order for the results of research to be accessible to other professionals and have a potential effect on the greater scientific community, it must be written and published. ... The following are the top five reasons for rejecting papers: 1 ...
Style. The prose style of a term paper should be formal, clear, concise, and direct. Don't try to sound "academic" or "scientific.". Just present solid research in a straightforward manner. Use the documentation style prescribed in your assignment or the one preferred by the discipline you're writing for.
Similarly, we should apply the scientific method to improving our writing practices. Collect advice from many sources, try different tactics, retain what works, and discard what doesn't to ultimately settle on the strategies that can best help you write (Rockquemore 2016, Kwok 2020).Here are a few suggestions you might try to improve your own writing practices.
Our top essays by scientists in 2021. 20 Dec 2021. 10:50 AM ET. By Katie Langin. Share: Robert Neubecker. When I emailed Phil De Luna in March to ask whether he was OK with titling the essay he'd written for Science " After falling in love, I reimagined my career path—for the better," I wasn't sure how he'd react to the "love" part.
Science: As a premier publication in the field, Science publishes peer-reviewed research and expert-curated information. Nature: Publishes peer-reviewed articles on biology, environment, health, and physical sciences. Nature is an authoritative source for current information. If articles are difficult to read, you can search for the same ...
First of all, before starting to compare different types of scientific research, it is necessary to gain awareness of what the phenomenon under study is. Thus, Salkind (2017) stated that "research is a process through which new knowledge is discovered" and "theory helps us to organize this new information into a coherent body that ...
A good research question is essential to guide your research paper, dissertation, or thesis. All research questions should be: Focused on a single problem or issue. Researchable using primary and/or secondary sources. Feasible to answer within the timeframe and practical constraints. Specific enough to answer thoroughly.
The scientific method is critical to the development of scientific theories, which explain empirical (experiential) laws in a scientifically rational manner.In a typical application of the scientific method, a researcher develops a hypothesis, tests it through various means, and then modifies the hypothesis on the basis of the outcome of the tests and experiments.
The properties and uses of acids and bases. The effect of light on plant growth and development. The differences between renewable and non-renewable energy sources. The process of photosynthesis and its importance for life on Earth. The impact of technology on the environment and society.
In shorter scientific papers, where the aim is to report the findings of a specific study, you might simply describe what you did in a methods section. In a longer or more complex research project, such as a thesis or dissertation , you will probably include a methodology section , where you explain your approach to answering the research ...
Academic journals, archives, and repositories are seeing an increasing number of questionable research papers clearly produced using generative AI. They are often created with widely available, general-purpose AI applications, most likely ChatGPT, and mimic scientific writing. Google Scholar easily locates and lists these questionable papers alongside reputable, quality-controlled research.
On 26 May 2019 Dr Hill published a scientific paper in the scientific journal 'Cancer Letters' (the paper). The paper made representations to the effect that the data obtained from the research programme showed that the drug suppressed resistance to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors.