writing biomedical research papers

• DOI: 10.31468/cjsdwr.342
• Corpus ID: 57776114

Essentials of Writing Biomedical Research Papers

• Published 25 July 1991
• Medicine, Biology

123 Citations

The principles of biomedical scientific writing: abstract and keywords, the principles of biomedical scientific writing: title.

• Highly Influenced
• 10 Excerpts

Essentials of Writing Biomedical Research Papers. Second Edition

Receive via shipping:

• Print bound version of the complete text

• Writing, Research & Publishing Guides

Sorry, there was a problem.

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required .

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

Image Unavailable

• To view this video download Flash Player

Follow the author

Essentials of Writing Biomedical Research Papers. Second Edition 2nd Edition

• ISBN-10 0071345442
• ISBN-13 978-0071345446
• Edition 2nd
• Publisher McGraw Hill / Medical
• Publication date October 21, 1999
• Language English
• Dimensions 8.5 x 0.9 x 10.8 inches
• Print length 440 pages
• See all details

Editorial Reviews

From the publisher, from the back cover, about the author, product details.

• Publisher ‏ : ‎ McGraw Hill / Medical; 2nd edition (October 21, 1999)
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• Paperback ‏ : ‎ 440 pages
• ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 0071345442
• ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-0071345446
• Item Weight ‏ : ‎ 2.37 pounds
• Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 8.5 x 0.9 x 10.8 inches
• #13 in Biostatistics (Books)
• #39 in Medical Research (Books)
• #490 in Fiction Writing Reference (Books)

About the author

Mimi zeiger.

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more

Customer reviews

Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.

To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.

• Sort reviews by Top reviews Most recent Top reviews

Top reviews from the United States

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. please try again later..

Top reviews from other countries

• About Amazon
• Investor Relations
• Amazon Devices
• Amazon Science
• Sell products on Amazon
• Sell on Amazon Business
• Sell apps on Amazon
• Become an Affiliate
• Advertise Your Products
• Self-Publish with Us
• Host an Amazon Hub
• › See More Make Money with Us
• Amazon Business Card
• Shop with Points
• Reload Your Balance
• Amazon Currency Converter
• Amazon and COVID-19
• Your Account
• Your Orders
• Shipping Rates & Policies
• Returns & Replacements
• Manage Your Content and Devices
• Amazon Assistant

• Conditions of Use
• Privacy Notice
• Consumer Health Data Privacy Disclosure
• Your Ads Privacy Choices

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Essentials of writing biomedical research papers

Related Papers

Journal of Surgical Research

IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication

Jalt Journal

Tamara Swenson

The Modern Language Journal

Aleidine Moeller

Anthony Liddicoat

Danielle Ooyoung Pyun

Luisa Pérez

Linda Kay Davis

Mary Jane Treacy

Claudia Fernández

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Sarah Jourdain

Modern Language Journal

Karim Sadeghi

Kathryn F Whitmore

Theresa Y Austin

diana pulido

Jinyan Huang

Jonathan Newton

Matilde Scaramucci

Jean Janecki

Frank Daulton

Mohammad Al-Masri

Cristina Pausini

Roger C Nunn

Peter Sayer

Patricia Cummins

Kathryn Murphy-Judy

Frank Nuessel

International Statistical Review

William Seaver

Randall Schumacker

Daniel Velasco

Shuangzhe Liu

IATEFL ESP SIG Journal Professional and Academic English

Mark Krzanowski , Andy Gillett

Limarys Caraballo

Manuel Diaz-campos

Francisco Yus

María del Pilar García Mayo

Robert W Train

Modern Language Journal 89, p. 158

Charles Grove

Kate Paesani

Mohd Sallehhudin Abd Aziz , Dr momtazur Rahman

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

Joseph Lo Bianco

Kees De Bot

Norris John

Bettye Chambers

Yasmina Mobarek

Maria Cristina Peccianti

Michel Sirvent

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Writing a Biomedical Research Paper

A Guide to Structure and Style

• © 2009
• Brian Stephen Budgell 0

Universitä du Quäbec à Trois-Riviäres, Trois-Riviäres, Canada

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

• Focuses very precisely on the biomedical research article. Biomedical language is quite different in many respects from general English and other scientific dialects, and so biomedical language deserves to be treated separately
• Deals with research articles, the publications which biomedical scientists have to produce in order to keep their jobs
• Derived largely from analyses of biomedical corpora. Hence, the advice offered is evidence-based rather than opinion-based, and is derived from examination of successful biomedical writing, i.e. that which has been published in peer-reviewed journals
• Web-based resources are available for exercises
• Includes supplementary material: sn.pub/extras

33k Accesses

1 Altmetric

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this book

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Other ways to access

Licence this eBook for your library

Institutional subscriptions

Table of contents (13 chapters)

Front matter, beginning a manuscript, the title: your last chance to make a first impression, writing an eff ective introduction, ensuring the flow of discourse: conjunctions and conjuncts, hedging your bets and minding your modals, writing an eff ective methods section, the passive voice and i, writing an eff ective results section, the special case of case studies, writing an eff effctive discussion, is it a discussion or a systematic review, writing an eff ective abstract, the process of manuscript submission and review, back matter.

• biomedical research
• wissenschaftliche Publikation

About this book

Authors and affiliations.

Brian Stephen Budgell

About the author

Bibliographic information.

Book Title : Writing a Biomedical Research Paper

Book Subtitle : A Guide to Structure and Style

Authors : Brian Stephen Budgell

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-88037-0

Publisher : Springer Tokyo

eBook Packages : Medicine , Medicine (R0)

Copyright Information : Springer-Verlag Tokyo 2009

Softcover ISBN : 978-4-431-88036-3 Published: 08 January 2009

eBook ISBN : 978-4-431-88037-0 Published: 05 December 2008

Edition Number : 1

Number of Pages : VIII, 66

Topics : Medicine/Public Health, general , Biomedicine general

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

We will keep fighting for all libraries - stand with us!

Internet Archive Audio

• This Just In
• Grateful Dead
• Old Time Radio
• 78 RPMs and Cylinder Recordings
• Audio Books & Poetry
• Computers, Technology and Science
• Music, Arts & Culture
• News & Public Affairs
• Spirituality & Religion
• Radio News Archive

• Flickr Commons
• Occupy Wall Street Flickr
• NASA Images
• Solar System Collection
• Ames Research Center

• All Software
• Old School Emulation
• MS-DOS Games
• Historical Software
• Classic PC Games
• Software Library
• Kodi Archive and Support File
• Vintage Software
• CD-ROM Software
• CD-ROM Software Library
• Software Sites
• Tucows Software Library
• Shareware CD-ROMs
• Software Capsules Compilation
• CD-ROM Images
• ZX Spectrum
• DOOM Level CD

• Smithsonian Libraries
• FEDLINK (US)
• Lincoln Collection
• American Libraries
• Canadian Libraries
• Universal Library
• Project Gutenberg
• Children's Library
• Biodiversity Heritage Library
• Books by Language
• Additional Collections

• Prelinger Archives
• Democracy Now!
• Occupy Wall Street
• TV NSA Clip Library
• Animation & Cartoons
• Arts & Music
• Computers & Technology
• Cultural & Academic Films
• Ephemeral Films
• Sports Videos
• Videogame Videos
• Youth Media

Search the history of over 866 billion web pages on the Internet.

Mobile Apps

• Wayback Machine (iOS)
• Wayback Machine (Android)

Browser Extensions

Archive-it subscription.

• Explore the Collections
• Build Collections

Save Page Now

Capture a web page as it appears now for use as a trusted citation in the future.

Please enter a valid web address

• Donate Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape

Essentials of writing biomedical research papers

Bookreader item preview, share or embed this item, flag this item for.

• Graphic Violence
• Explicit Sexual Content
• Hate Speech
• Misinformation/Disinformation
• Marketing/Phishing/Advertising
• Misleading/Inaccurate/Missing Metadata

plus-circle Add Review comment Reviews

40 Previews

Better World Books

DOWNLOAD OPTIONS

No suitable files to display here.

PDF access not available for this item.

IN COLLECTIONS

Uploaded by station64.cebu on April 1, 2023

SIMILAR ITEMS (based on metadata)

Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors

Page Contents

• Why Authorship Matters
• Who Is an Author?
• Non-Author Contributors
• Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Assisted Technology

1. Why Authorship Matters

Authorship confers credit and has important academic, social, and financial implications. Authorship also implies responsibility and accountability for published work. The following recommendations are intended to ensure that contributors who have made substantive intellectual contributions to a paper are given credit as authors, but also that contributors credited as authors understand their role in taking responsibility and being accountable for what is published.

Editors should be aware of the practice of excluding local researchers from low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) from authorship when data are from LMICs. Inclusion of local authors adds to fairness, context, and implications of the research. Lack of inclusion of local investigators as authors should prompt questioning and may lead to rejection.

Because authorship does not communicate what contributions qualified an individual to be an author, some journals now request and publish information about the contributions of each person named as having participated in a submitted study, at least for original research. Editors are strongly encouraged to develop and implement a contributorship policy. Such policies remove much of the ambiguity surrounding contributions, but leave unresolved the question of the quantity and quality of contribution that qualify an individual for authorship. The ICMJE has thus developed criteria for authorship that can be used by all journals, including those that distinguish authors from other contributors.

2. Who Is an Author?

The ICMJE recommends that authorship be based on the following 4 criteria:

• Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
• Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content; AND
• Final approval of the version to be published; AND
• Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work done, an author should be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work. In addition, authors should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors.

All those designated as authors should meet all four criteria for authorship, and all who meet the four criteria should be identified as authors. Those who do not meet all four criteria should be acknowledged—see Section II.A.3 below. These authorship criteria are intended to reserve the status of authorship for those who deserve credit and can take responsibility for the work. The criteria are not intended for use as a means to disqualify colleagues from authorship who otherwise meet authorship criteria by denying them the opportunity to meet criterion #s 2 or 3. Therefore, all individuals who meet the first criterion should have the opportunity to participate in the review, drafting, and final approval of the manuscript.

The individuals who conduct the work are responsible for identifying who meets these criteria and ideally should do so when planning the work, making modifications as appropriate as the work progresses. We encourage collaboration and co-authorship with colleagues in the locations where the research is conducted. It is the collective responsibility of the authors, not the journal to which the work is submitted, to determine that all people named as authors meet all four criteria; it is not the role of journal editors to determine who qualifies or does not qualify for authorship or to arbitrate authorship conflicts. If agreement cannot be reached about who qualifies for authorship, the institution(s) where the work was performed, not the journal editor, should be asked to investigate. The criteria used to determine the order in which authors are listed on the byline may vary, and are to be decided collectively by the author group and not by editors. If authors request removal or addition of an author after manuscript submission or publication, journal editors should seek an explanation and signed statement of agreement for the requested change from all listed authors and from the author to be removed or added.

The corresponding author is the one individual who takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer-review, and publication process. The corresponding author typically ensures that all the journal’s administrative requirements, such as providing details of authorship, ethics committee approval, clinical trial registration documentation, and disclosures of relationships and activities are properly completed and reported, although these duties may be delegated to one or more co-authors. The corresponding author should be available throughout the submission and peer-review process to respond to editorial queries in a timely way, and should be available after publication to respond to critiques of the work and cooperate with any requests from the journal for data or additional information should questions about the paper arise after publication. Although the corresponding author has primary responsibility for correspondence with the journal, the ICMJE recommends that editors send copies of all correspondence to all listed authors.

When a large multi-author group has conducted the work, the group ideally should decide who will be an author before the work is started and confirm who is an author before submitting the manuscript for publication. All members of the group named as authors should meet all four criteria for authorship, including approval of the final manuscript, and they should be able to take public responsibility for the work and should have full confidence in the accuracy and integrity of the work of other group authors. They will also be expected as individuals to complete disclosure forms.

Some large multi-author groups designate authorship by a group name, with or without the names of individuals. When submitting a manuscript authored by a group, the corresponding author should specify the group name if one exists, and clearly identify the group members who can take credit and responsibility for the work as authors. The byline of the article identifies who is directly responsible for the manuscript, and MEDLINE lists as authors whichever names appear on the byline. If the byline includes a group name, MEDLINE will list the names of individual group members who are authors or who are collaborators, sometimes called non-author contributors, if there is a note associated with the byline clearly stating that the individual names are elsewhere in the paper and whether those names are authors or collaborators.

3. Non-Author Contributors

Contributors who meet fewer than all 4 of the above criteria for authorship should not be listed as authors, but they should be acknowledged. Examples of activities that alone (without other contributions) do not qualify a contributor for authorship are acquisition of funding; general supervision of a research group or general administrative support; and writing assistance, technical editing, language editing, and proofreading. Those whose contributions do not justify authorship may be acknowledged individually or together as a group under a single heading (e.g. "Clinical Investigators" or "Participating Investigators"), and their contributions should be specified (e.g., "served as scientific advisors," "critically reviewed the study proposal," "collected data," "provided and cared for study patients," "participated in writing or technical editing of the manuscript").

Because acknowledgment may imply endorsement by acknowledged individuals of a study’s data and conclusions, editors are advised to require that the corresponding author obtain written permission to be acknowledged from all acknowledged individuals.

Use of AI for writing assistance should be reported in the acknowledgment section.

4. Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Assisted Technology

At submission, the journal should require authors to disclose whether they used artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted technologies (such as Large Language Models [LLMs], chatbots, or image creators) in the production of submitted work. Authors who use such technology should describe, in both the cover letter and the submitted work in the appropriate section if applicable, how they used it. For example, if AI was used for writing assistance, describe this in the acknowledgment section (see Section II.A.3). If AI was used for data collection, analysis, or figure generation, authors should describe this use in the methods (see Section IV.A.3.d). Chatbots (such as ChatGPT) should not be listed as authors because they cannot be responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of the work, and these responsibilities are required for authorship (see Section II.A.1). Therefore, humans are responsible for any submitted material that included the use of AI-assisted technologies. Authors should carefully review and edit the result because AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased. Authors should not list AI and AI-assisted technologies as an author or co-author, nor cite AI as an author. Authors should be able to assert that there is no plagiarism in their paper, including in text and images produced by the AI. Humans must ensure there is appropriate attribution of all quoted material, including full citations.

Next: Disclosure of Financial and Non-Financial Relationships and Activities, and Conflicts of Interest

Keep up-to-date Request to receive an E-mail when the Recommendations are updated.

Subscribe to Changes

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.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Endocrinol Metab
• v.18(2); 2020 Apr

The Principles of Biomedical Scientific Writing: Citation

Zahra bahadoran.

1 Nutrition and Endocrine Research Center, Research Institute for Endocrine Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Parvin Mirmiran

2 Department of Clinical Nutrition and Human Dietetics, Faculty of Nutrition Sciences and Food Technology, National Nutrition and Food Technology Research Institute, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Khosrow Kashfi

3 Department of Molecular, Cellular and Biomedical Sciences, Sophie Davis School of Biomedical Education, City University of New York School of Medicine, New York, United States

Asghar Ghasemi

4 Endocrine Physiology Research Center, Research Institute for Endocrine Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Citation, the act of properly referring to others’ ideas, thoughts, or concepts, is a common and critical practice in scientific writing. Citations are used to give credit to own work, to support an argument, to acknowledge others’ work, to distinguish other authors’ ideas from one’s work, and to direct readers to sources of information. A good citation adds to the scientific prestige of the paper and makes it more valuable to the reader. The citation has three basic elements: quoting from others, an in-text reference to the source, and bibliographic details of the source. Beyond technical skills, the citation needs an in-depth knowledge of the field and should follow basic rules, including the selection of relevant and valid sources, stating information/facts from others’ work, and referring to others’ work accurately and ethically. Several systems and styles are used to cite scientific sources; however, the most commonly used systems in medical sciences are ‘author-date’ systems (e.g., Harvard system) and numerical systems (e.g., Vancouver system). Here, we discuss how to make an accurate, complete, and ethical citation, and provide simple and practical guides to organize references in a scientific medical paper.

According to Merriam Webster dictionary, the word citation is defined as “an act of quoting,” where quote means “to speak or write from another usually with credit acknowledgment.” In scientific communication, the citation is commonly considered a technical practice to refer to the source in the text to represent that the information is derived from an external source ( 1 , 2 ). The citation is more than just referencing; it provides more value than acknowledging the source of literature being reviewed and making a reference list ( 2 ). Citation helps the authors put their work in connection with previous ones, to tell the story artfully, to acknowledge others’ work, and to contextualize study findings ( 2 - 4 ). A well-referenced paper supports the novelty and value of the work and improves its visibility ( 5 ).

Regardless of its importance, the citation may be the least noticed aspect of a scientific manuscript ( 6 ). Citation errors, including misquotation and errors in the bibliography, are common in the medical literature. The prevalence of misquotations in different journals ranges from 10% to 20% ( 7 ), and about 50% to 70% of references of published papers contain at least one error ( 8 , 9 ). Inaccurate quotations are displeasing for the cited author, misleading for the reader, and initiate circulation of false facts ( 7 , 10 ). The consequences of bibliography errors include difficulty in reference retrieval, limitation for the reader to read more widely, failure to credit the cited author(s), and inaccuracies in citation indexes.

Following our previous guides on how to write Introduction ( 11 ), Material and Methods ( 12 ), Results ( 13 ), Discussion ( 14 ), Title ( 15 ), and Abstract and keyword ( 16 ) of a hypothesis-testing paper, here, we provide a practical guide on importance and function of the citation of a scientific medical paper. We discuss how to select sources for the citation, quote information from others’ work, refer to the sources, and make an accurate reference list for a scientific biomedical paper.

2. Functions of Citation

The citation is used to give credit to an author’s work, acknowledge other’s work, distinguish an author’s ideas from others, direct readers to original sources of information, and avoid plagiarism ( 2 - 4 , 17 ). Citation help readers to understand the work, to justify the conclusions, to judge the novelty and scope of the manuscripts ( 18 ), and critically evaluate what contribution the study makes ( 4 , 19 ). Using proper citation is the only way to use the work of others and not commit plagiarism ( 20 ). To avoid plagiarism, authors need to accurately refer to the most relevant publications and cite facts and conclusions ( 1 , 20 ). Functions of the citation in different sections of an original paper are shown in Box 1; note that the result section does not have any citation.

3. Components of the Citation

The citation has three components: (1) quotation, i.e., providing either a summary, a paraphrase or a direct quotation from others’ works, (2) in-text references, i.e., brief addressing to the source, and (3) bibliographic details, i.e., name of the authors, source of publication, date of publication.

3.1. Quotation

Quotations from other sources can be provided by direct quoting, paraphrasing, or providing a summary ( 3 ). In direct quoting, others statements (more than six consecutive words) are exactly copied, put in the quotation marks, and immediately followed by an in-text citation to the original source; every word and punctuation mark should be exactly the same as the original version ( 17 , 20 , 22 ). Direct quoting is used when original words express an idea distinctively or more concisely than your summary, as well as to present well-known statements or to provide historical context for a particular theory or construct ( 8 , 23 ). Direct quoting is not used for reporting findings of a published work, variable names, and operational definitions. Box 2 provides some practical tips for the appropriate use of direct quotations.

In paraphrasing, authors express others’ writing in their own words ( 23 ), followed by a reference to the original source. In cases of paraphrasing another’s work or idea, authors should check their statement to be accurate and fair ( 17 , 20 ). Use of synonyms and rephrasing are typical ways to change the original statements ( 9 ); however, if the paraphrase is too close to the source text in wording, syntax, and structure, it may be considered ‘patch-writing’, which is “the act of making small changes and substitutions to the copied source material” ( 24 ). Note that paraphrasing and summarizing are complex and critical academic skills and depend on one’s knowledge of the content ( 25 ).

In providing a summary, a brief statement of the main points of a work (paper, book or chapter) is presented ( 23 ) using a neutral, affiliating, or distancing approach; in affiliating and distancing approaches, not only existing knowledge is summarized but also authors present their stance/viewpoint ( 2 ). The authors need to present their approaches accurately and persuasively by using appropriate verbs ( 2 ). For a neutral summary, use of verbs ‘comment’, ‘explain’, ‘indicate’, ‘note’, ‘describe’, ‘observe’, remark’, ‘state’, and ‘find’ is recommended ( 2 ). These referring verbs can be used either in the present or the past tense; using the present tense indicates that the source is recent and still valid, whereas the past indicates that the source is older and may be out of date ( 3 ). To find further appropriate verbs and vocabularies to cite the literature being reviewed, readers can refer to other works ( 2 , 26 ).

3.2. In-Text References

In-text references (brief address to the source in text) are presented by three major systems: ‘citation-sequence’, ‘citation-name’, and ‘name-year’. In the ‘citation-sequence’ system, numbers are used to refer to the reference list ( 27 , 28 ), which is numbered sequentially according to the appearance in the text. In the ‘citation-name’ system, the numbering system is used to refer to the reference list, which is numbered in alphabetical order by authors’ names; it means numbers are used in the text regardless of the order in which they appear ( 28 ). The ‘name-year’ system consists of the surname of the author and the year of publication, and the reference list is alphabetically ordered first by author and then by year ( 28 ). If ‘name-year’ system is used, in case of referring to two references with the same first author, chronological hierarchy order is followed (e.g., Annesley, 2010; Annesley, 2011), and in case of the same first author and same publication year, the references need to be differentiated by alphabetical letters after the year of publication (e.g., Annesley, 2010a; Annesley, 2010b) ( 19 ). If the name of author/editor cannot be identified, use the title of the work and the year of publication instead; if the date is not identified, use the phrase ‘no date’ after author’s name and where both author and date are unknown, use the title followed by ‘no date’ ( 23 ).

Citation management software programs (e.g., EndNote, Reference Manager, RefWorks, ProCite, and Refbase) easily connect in-text references to the reference list. These programs can format in-text references and bibliographic details in a different style (discussed in section 4) and can change them from one style to another.

The general rule to refer to a reference in the text is to place the reference immediately after the idea or fact introduced. In other words, an in-text referring might appear in the middle of a sentence and not always at the end ( 6 , 19 ). Unless a sentence ends with a fact (in which case the citation follows), the authors should not pool all the references at the end of a sentence ( 29 ). In case of citing multiple facts in a sentence, it should be clarified which reference is corresponding to which fact ( 19 ). Wherever more than one reference is used to support a fact, the authors should refer to the references in chronological order (the oldest reference is listed as the first in-text reference) ( 19 ). For direct quoting or citing a specific idea or piece of information, the page number of the quote should be included in the in-text reference ( 23 , 30 ). For an in-text citation that refers to secondary sources (second-hand references), name the original source and then use the term ‘cited by’ followed by the reference for the work in which it is quoted (e.g., Schweer, cited by Harrison, 1992, p. 774) ( 31 ).

3.3. Bibliographic Details (Reference List)

Every in-text reference should have a corresponding entry in the reference list ( 28 ); the exceptions are ‘personal communications’ ( 28 ), and ‘unpublished data’ ( 6 ) that are referenced within the text, but do not appear in the reference list. According to the British Standards Institution, a reference is “a set of data describing a document, sufficiently precise and detailed to identify it and enable it to be located” ( 32 ). The essential elements and order of the most common forms of references, including journal articles, books, reports, and websites, are given in supplementary Box 1.

The bibliographic details provided in the reference list should be accurate and complete to ensure that readers will be able to locate the material as easily as possible ( 32 ). The accuracy of the reference list increases the credibility of the author, the journal, and the research itself ( 33 ). To increase the accuracy of the bibliographic details, ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) recommends that “References should be verified using either an electronic bibliographic source, such as PubMed, or print copies from original sources” ( 34 ). Errors in the reference list usually arise by copying bibliographic details from previous papers; thus, authors should not copy from reference lists or databases, and the only reliable source is the original paper published in the journal ( 8 ). In case of using second-hand information, bibliographic detail of a source, where the information is found, should be included in the reference list.

4. Referencing Systems and Styles

Broadly, three types of referencing systems are employed in the academic world ( 3 ). These are, (i) consecutive-numbering system (well-known as Vancouver), (ii) author name-publication year system (well-known as Harvard) ( 19 ); (iii) footnote/endnote system, where sources are listed at the bottom of the page or at the end of the paper and the numbers in superscript run consecutively throughout the paper ( 3 ). The first two systems are commonly used in medicine, whereas the third system is most often used in the humanities. Other less common reference styles that have been established and used within different fields of science and disciplines include Modern Language Association (MLA) ( 35 ), the American Psychological Association (APA) ( 36 ), the Chicago Manual of Style (CMS), and the American Medical Association (AMA) Style ( 29 ).

The first format for bibliographic references in medical science was adopted officially by the Vancouver Group and the National Library of Medicine (NLM), in 1979 ( 37 ). The Vancouver Group was a small group of editors of medical journals who met informally in 1978 in Vancouver, British Columbia, to establish guidelines for the format of manuscripts submitted to their journals ( 37 ); the group expanded into the ICMJE and developed ‘the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals,’ which is updated regularly ( 38 ) ( http://www.icmje.org ). The reference style is famed as the Vancouver style because of its origin, and it has become a broadly accepted bibliographic format ( 8 ). According to the Vancouver style (the author-number system), references are numbered consecutively in the order in which they are first mentioned in the text; references in text, tables, and legends should be identified by Arabic numerals in parentheses ( 38 ). The Vancouver style is used by PubMed and MEDLINE.

The Harvard system, so-called as the ‘parenthetical author-date method’, is another popular referencing system ( 31 ). The origin of the system is obscure; however, the first evidence of the system goes back to 1881, when Edward Laurens Mark, professor of anatomy and director of Harvard’s zoological laboratory, published a landmark cytological paper and used parenthetic author-year citation ( 39 ). As Chernin narrated ( 39 ), from an editorial note in the British Medical Journal in 1945, the expression ‘Harvard system’ was not introduced by the Harvard University, but an English visitor to the library of Harvard University was impressed by the system of bibliographical reference and named it as the ‘Harvard system’ upon their return to England. The Royal Society defined the Harvard referencing system in 1965 as “a system in which names and dates are given in the body of the text and the references alphabetically at the end of the paper” ( 31 ).

Although most biomedical journals have adopted the Vancouver style, some still prefer the Harvard system, because they like to know just what author(s) is/are being cited as they read the text ( 40 ). However, the Harvard system is criticized due to potential difficulties that it may create for the readers. For example, if they are interested in an item in the reference list, they need to look it up within the main text. This system may also disrupt the text when a large number of references need to be cited within a paragraph ( 40 ).

Although medical journals specify Vancouver or Harvard systems, some journals have made minor modifications ( 41 ). For example, they have modified the referencing systems, both in-text references, and bibliographies, they have changed punctuation marks, used bold, and italics enhancements, alphabetical or sequential ordering of references, or have made combinations of variations that create a unique reference style that is as large in number as the number of journals currently published ( 41 , 42 ). Authors should carefully follow the format used by the target journal that is usually given in the Information/Instructions for Authors.

5. Other Considerations

5.1. dealing with scientific sources.

The most important challenge of the citation process in a scientific work is ‘which sources must be selected for citation’ and ‘How do the authors deal with the literature being reviewed to cite others accurately and ethically?’ Existence of a large number of publications on the topic makes selection difficult; however, authors should artfully select them to cover all citation purposes and add to the manuscript scientific prestige ( 43 ). Among available sources, the most relevant, valid, methodologically sound, and those with a landmark contribution to the topic should be selected ( 9 , 17 ). If there are a significant number of prior studies on the topic, the most comprehensive and the most recent works should be selected because they presumably discuss and reference the older studies ( 44 ).

The most valid and available sources for citing are published peer-reviewed original journal articles; primary sources (research articles written by those who conducted the research) are preferred ( 21 ). Secondary sources (review papers) can be used when primary sources are unavailable, or a summary for elaborating research problem is more effective; however, they should not be taken as definitive word or fact on the topic ( 9 ). Citation of review articles rather than the original papers should be limited ( 45 , 46 ) since it fails to provide credit or acknowledge the effort of the authors of original research papers. In addition, it may lead to misinterpretation or oversimplification of original research findings ( 45 ). The use of high-quality systematic review is acceptable; otherwise, it should be acknowledged in the text as a review paper to prevent misleading the casual reader about the originality of the work ( 9 ).

Less valid sources (i.e., theses, conference proceeding papers, unpublished data, abstracts, and personal communications) are not recommended ( 19 ) unless they contain essential information not available from public sources ( 47 ). These less valid references can only be used for supporting the results of preliminary studies or citing parallel results in another study population ( 17 ). In case of referring to ‘unpublished sources’ or ‘personal communications,’ the written permission of the author is required to ensure the accuracy of the data and prior approval from the authors ( 6 , 17 ).

Sources that may not be found in public domain, e.g., submitted but unaccepted journal articles, meeting abstracts, and posters should not be used ( 6 , 17 ). Standard textbooks are not cited except for describing a theoretical or methodologic principle or a statistical procedure. As stated by ICMJE, authors are responsible for checking that the references cited not be retracted articles ( 34 ).

5.2. Statement Needs to be Supported by a Reference

As a general rule, findings/statements of other’s work need to be supported by references ( 9 ). Statements like ‘the literature suggest that…’ or ‘there is general agreement that…’ should be followed by addressing one or more references ( 9 ); it is, however, not appropriate and usually essential to support a statement with more than 3 or 4 references ( 9 ). In contrast, common knowledge in a field, defined as facts, dates, events, or information that are expected to be known by someone studying or working in a particular field (e.g., long-established facts or theories), or facts that can be found publicly (e.g., date of the second world war) and are likely to be known by many people (e.g., capital cities of the countries) do not generally have to be referenced ( 23 ).

5.3. Accuracy and Ethics of the Citation

Accurate citation is a crucial issue, enabling readers to follow the flow of ideas and statements in a scientific field and ensure the integrity of the science being communicated ( 19 , 48 ). Citing the sources without retrieving and reading their full-texts and understanding their entirety ( 19 ), giving multiple similar references to support a single statement, or using a single source to support multiple statements are among examples of inaccurate citations ( 48 ). Since an abstract is a brief summary of the work, its content may not accurately present details reported in the text, and therefore, it is a poor practice to cite references after skimming results of the abstract rather considering the whole text ( 9 ).

To avoid inaccurate quoting, the authors should review the entire original article to check the facts. They should be careful in case of paraphrasing or summarizing in order to make sure that the intent or meaning of the original author is not altered ( 49 ). To reduce the risk of misinterpretation of information, the use of secondary sources should be avoided ( 49 ). According to NLM, “The medical literature is full of references that have been cited from other references, serving only to perpetuate erroneous information”, thus, they emphasizes that the authors should never reference documents that they have not read ( 27 ).

Spurious citation, biased citation, and over self-citation are also common problems of citation (Box 3). Self-citation, defined as citing one’s own work in a scientific paper, is a common practice and is an essential part of scientific communication, which represents the continuous and cumulative nature of the research process ( 50 ). When a researcher works on a specific topic for years, 25% self-citation is not uncommon ( 46 ). However, either irrelevant self-citation or over self-citation are considered unethical practices, which affect the precision of the paper ( 50 , 51 ). The spurious citation occurs where sources are not needed but are included anyway, e.g., over-citation or redundant citation (i.e., where the extra sources do not add any value beyond the first source), or citing an obscure, historical reference to give an impression of erudition ( 4 ).

6. Common Errors and Problems of Citation

Citation errors reflect badly on the authors and the publishing journal and may reflect underlying flaws in other areas of the published research ( 33 ). Citation content errors (e.g., inaccurate quoting from others) and both major and minor errors in referencing (both in-text references and bibliographic details) can occur during the citation process ( 4 , 7 , 33 ). Inaccurate quotations or misquotations are perpetual citation errors that lead to circulate a false ‘accepted fact’, which are very hard to correct ( 10 ). A list of common citation errors is provided in Box 3.

Major errors in references, which are responsible for up to 21% of citation errors in the medical field ( 53 ), prevent the source being retrievable ( 4 ). With minor errors (i.e., punctuation and spelling mistakes in bibliography, i.e., name of authors, title, journal, volume, year, and page numbers), references can still be found ( 4 , 9 ). Potential pitfalls of citation-management software programs may also cause some citation errors ( 54 ). Several duplicate copies of a reference in the software may be inserted due to importing the same reference on a number of different occasions (maybe with different patterns); this may lead to the appearance of duplication in the reference list ( 6 , 48 ). In the case of anonymous papers (prepared by a committee or a group of authors), some mistakes may occur ( 54 ). Another common mistake relates to the journal-title; the journal-title may be imported in the abbreviated form, while both full title and conventional abbreviation need to be entered into the journal section of the reference manager ( 54 ). To sum up, the author is responsible for final checking the accuracy of the bibliographic details ( 19 ) and should correct reference manager databases before the reference is exported to the final bibliography.

7. Conclusion

Making good and accurate citations adds to the manuscript’s scientific prestige and signifies that authors have an in-depth knowledge of the literature and writing skills. An original research paper usually has 25 - 40 references and the authors should be note that citing too few or too many references may reflect poor intellectual attitude and work validity. The most important, most elegant and the most recent sources should be selected for citation.

Authors' Contribution: Study concept and design: Zahra Bahadoran and Asghar Ghasemi; drafting of the manuscript: Zahra Bahadoran, Parvin Mirmiran, and Asghar Ghasemi; critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Khosrow Kashfi and Parvin Mirmiran.

Conflict of Interests: The authors have no conflict of interest.

Funding/Support: This study was supported by the Research Institute for Endocrine Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences.

• Alzheimer's disease & dementia
• Arthritis & Rheumatism
• Attention deficit disorders
• Autism spectrum disorders
• Biomedical technology
• Diseases, Conditions, Syndromes
• Endocrinology & Metabolism
• Gastroenterology
• Gerontology & Geriatrics
• Health informatics
• Inflammatory disorders
• Medical economics
• Medical research
• Medications
• Neuroscience
• Obstetrics & gynaecology
• Oncology & Cancer
• Ophthalmology
• Overweight & Obesity
• Parkinson's & Movement disorders
• Psychology & Psychiatry
• Radiology & Imaging
• Sleep disorders
• Sports medicine & Kinesiology
• Vaccination
• Breast cancer
• Cardiovascular disease
• Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
• Colon cancer
• Coronary artery disease
• Heart attack
• Heart disease
• High blood pressure
• Kidney disease
• Lung cancer
• Multiple sclerosis
• Myocardial infarction
• Ovarian cancer
• Post traumatic stress disorder
• Rheumatoid arthritis
• Schizophrenia
• Skin cancer
• Type 2 diabetes
• Full List »

share this!

June 7, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

peer-reviewed publication

trusted source

New bioengineering research could improve bone regeneration treatments

by University of Glasgow

A bioengineering breakthrough which helps repair damaged bones without causing the negative side effects of other treatments could lead to better results for patients, scientists say.

It could support the development of new treatments to help people living with serious skeletal injuries or cancer patients who have lost bone to the disease to regrow bone tissue .

Researchers in Scotland have found a new way to harness the powerful healing effect of ' growth factors '—naturally-occurring molecules which help the body to regenerate.

Growth factors play an important role in developmental biology, helping to organize the development of bodies as they grow from infancy into adulthood. They also help the body to heal after injuries, where they initiate a complex series of processes which knit tissues back together.

Growth factor therapies, which use the targeted delivery of specific active proteins to encourage tissue regrowth, are promising methods for helping patients heal by boosting their body's natural processes of regeneration.

However, growth factor therapies can have serious side-effects when used to heal bones. Active proteins need to be administered in high doses at the site of bone breaks or defects in order to be effective. Uncontrolled release of these active growth factors at the site of bone implant can cause bone formation where it is unintended—a process known as ectopic bone formation. The treatments can also cause other side effects like postoperative inflammation, which can have negative effects on patients' health.

In their paper, titled "Engineered Surfaces That Promote Capture of Latent Proteins to Facilitate Integrin-Mediated Mechanical Activation of Growth Factors " published in the journal Advanced Materials , the University of Glasgow-led research team outline how they made their breakthrough.

They used an inexpensive polymer called poly(ethyl acrylate), or PEA, to develop a surgical implant which can be used at the site of a bone defect. The unique properties of the implant's surface allowed the team to capture the body's inactive growth factors and ensure they start working only where they're required.

Previous research from the team has shown that PEA interacts with fibronectin, a protein abundantly found in the human body which helps cells stick together and grow, to form nanoscale networks of the protein across its surface.

As the network forms, it changes the shape of the fibronectin, exposing some of the amino acids in the fibronectin molecule. Those amino acids are naturally used in the body to help cells attach as well as store inactive proteins.

The team dropped a recombinant protein fragment called latent transforming growth factor beta-binding protein-1, or rLTBP1, onto the fibronectin network, causing the two proteins to stick together.

rLTBP1 works like a magnet for a protein called TGF-β1, which encourages growth factor cells in the body to produce new bone tissue at low doses. TGF-β1 molecules are trapped in a protein complex called LAP, which keeps the protein's ability to encourage bone regeneration inactive until it is required.

They coated small plastic tubes with PEA, fibronectin and rLTBP1. Then, they demonstrated the potential of these implants to regenerate bone in critical-sized defect in mice. Over the course of the study, they observed complete regeneration of bone defect.

When bone-regenerating cells arrived at the site of bone defect, attachment sites on the cells' surface called integrins latched onto the LAP molecules that the rLTBP1 on the implant surface had immobilized. Through mechanical pulling of LAP on one side by integrins and on the other by rLTBP1, TGF-β1 was released, which kickstarted its growth factor signaling processes. This resulted in controlled bone formation only where it was required.

Dr. Udesh Dhawan, research fellow at the University of Glasgow's James Watt School of Engineering, is the paper's lead author. He said, "The biological processes that underpin this study have been understood for more than two decades, but this is the first time that they've been harnessed to produce this regenerative effect.

"Being able to deliver immobilized proteins directly to the treatment site in this way provides much more control over how growth factors become active and start the healing process. It also works at much lower concentrations than previous treatments, helping further minimize the chances of unwanted bone growth beyond the site in need of healing."

The team's findings build on years of advanced bone regeneration research led by the University of Glasgow's Professor Manuel-Salmeron-Sanchez and Professor Matthew Dalby. Their work includes a landmark treatment which saved a badly injured dog's leg from amputation in 2017.

In that treatment, the team harnessed the growth factor potential of a protein called BMP-2 bonded to a PEA surface to regrow bone in the dog's leg. In the new paper, the team show how they used BMP-2 in a parallel control study to help measure the effectiveness of rLTBP1 in regenerating bone. They found that rLTBP1 worked just as well as BMP-2 in helping to regenerate bones, even though it was administered in lower doses.

Professor Salmeron-Sanchez, co-director of the University of Glasgow's Center for the Cellular Microenvironment, said, "Growth factors are very powerful tools for helping the body heal, but currently they need to be very carefully applied to prevent negative side effects cancelling out any positive therapeutic benefits.

"Our approach to controlling the activation of growth factors could create new opportunities for patients in the future. It could help regrow bone for patients who have lost large sections to diseases like cancer or through serious accidents, providing a much higher quality of life for them."

Dr. Dhawan added, "This is a new step in the right direction, but physiological systems are more interconnected than we can imagine and how this new strategy affects other crucial components of the body such as immune cells still needs to be evaluated.

"Nevertheless, these are very encouraging results, which suggest that this new treatment could have real benefits in clinical settings to encourage bone regeneration."

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Novel analysis methods used for Huntington's disease

12 hours ago

Glowing dye may help surgeons eradicate prostate cancer

13 hours ago

Research identifies issues with booking new appointments at clinics for cancer treatment

Jun 8, 2024

What makes roads safer? New study uses AI to find out

Socially connected older adults hit harder by pandemic than isolated peers

Girl in Australia, 2, struck with H5N1 bird flu: WHO

Clinical trial shows 15-day Paxlovid regimen safe but adds no clear benefit for long COVID

Jun 7, 2024

Unlocking another piece of the Parkinson's puzzle—scientists reveal workings of vital molecular switch

Antioxidant gel preserves islet function after pancreas removal: New approach could reduce diabetes complications

More evidence suggests regular consumption of melatonin can reduce chances of age-related macular degeneration

Related stories.

New microscopy method shows blood vessel growth in skull injuries

Jun 4, 2024

Combining two bone healing remedies can inhibit bone growth and regeneration

Feb 17, 2023

Researchers develop novel 'bone bandage' material for cracked bones

Feb 1, 2024

Bioprinting for bone repair improved with gene therapy

Apr 12, 2022

Multiple biomaterials for immediate implant placement tissue repair: Current status and future perspectives

Mar 29, 2024

New method can promote regrowth of long bones more affordably and with fewer side effects

May 24, 2023

Recommended for you

Scientists develop new CRISPR gene editing platform for precision medicine and cancer treatment

Pattern of blood plasma protein levels reveals development of sepsis in patients

Bionic eye trial reveals substantial vision improvements over 2.5 years

New therapeutic approach for frontotemporal dementia uses modified viruses to replace a missing protein in the brain

Advancements in protein engineering offer hope for cancer therapies

Let us know if there is a problem with our content.

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Medical Xpress in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter

We have a new app!

Take the Access library with you wherever you go—easy access to books, videos, images, podcasts, personalized features, and more.

Download the Access App here: iOS and Android . Learn more here!

• Remote Access
• Save figures into PowerPoint
• Download tables as PDFs

Revisions of Exercises

• Download Chapter PDF

Disclaimer: These citations have been automatically generated based on the information we have and it may not be 100% accurate. Please consult the latest official manual style if you have any questions regarding the format accuracy.

Download citation file:

• Search Book

Jump to a Section

• Full Chapter
• Supplementary Content

Summary of Guidelines for Word Choice

Words in scientific research papers should be

Use few if any abbreviations.

Exercise 1.1: Principles of Word Choice

Words in scientific research papers should be PRECISE .

(Strunk and White, II. 16, p. 21: Use definite, specific, concrete language.)

Your words should be as precise as your science.

Note that precise, definite, specific, concrete words evoke a mental image. For example, "dog" evokes much more of a mental image than "animal" does. Similarly, "pattern of discharge" evokes much more of a mental image than "response characteristics" does. Words that evoke mental images help make writing easy to read. Abstractions (such as "animal" and "characteristics") make reading difficult.

greatly decreased; reduced by 80%.

POINT : "Compromised" is imprecise: what happened to renal blood flow? ("Compromise" means "place at risk." A person's chances of survival can be compromised. But blood flow is measurable, so it increases or decreases.) "Drastically" is also imprecise. Science is quantitative; thus, a quantitative detail such as "by 80%" is clearer than a qualitative term such as "greatly."

POINT : "Several" is imprecise. How long is several hours? State the mean or a range.

POINT : A change could be either an increase or a decrease. From the first sentence we cannot tell whether the author meant increase or decrease. But from "further increase" in the next sentence we can see that the change in the first sentence must have been an increase. It is clearest to write "increase," not "change," in the first sentence.

incubated in, grown in, bathed in.

POINT : "Exposed to" is imprecise. How were the cells exposed? Use a precise term. "Put in" does not work here because the cells probably were not added for 48 h.

POINT : Keep the name of the animal in the reader's mind.

prevented, blocked.

POINT : "To rescue" means to free from death or destruction. An appropriate use of "rescue" is to say that the phenotype is rescued (from death or destruction) by some event in the genotype. In Example 6, an intervention prevents a process (it does not rescue the process). In Example 7, one substance offsets the lack of another substance (it does not rescue the lack of another substance). "Rescue" is an example of a "buzz word," that is, a word that is in fashion. Using a buzz word shows that you belong to the club. It is reasonable to use current terminology, including buzz words, but the problem with buzz words is that they are often imprecise. So use buzz words only in their precise meaning.

prevented, inhibited, repressed.

POINT : "Negatively regulated" is a vague way of expressing a concept that can be conveyed precisely by a variety of verbs.

Get Free Access Through Your Institution

Pop-up div successfully displayed.

This div only appears when the trigger link is hovered over. Otherwise it is hidden from view.

Please Wait