The Title
The title of a manuscript is the first area that we expect reviewers to evaluate. Many people use catchy titles to capture readers’ attention in their papers. However, because many readers only look at the title when deciding whether to read a paper, we suggest that the title should describe the paper’s content and, if applicable, the study’s results. For example, if a paper uses medical student focus groups to evaluate a lecture, that is what the title should say. If the curriculum is about social media, the title could be something like “Follow me,” which doesn’t really describe what the paper discusses but is somewhat catchy. So, you could suggest, “Follow me: an evaluation of an undergraduate course about social media.” Or, “Follow me: medical student focus groups rate social media course.” You can also comment if the title is too long. Many people like to use colons in their titles, but if the title is too long, it is easy to lose track of what it says. The title is often the only part of the paper that is read. If it doesn’t catch the reader’s attention, they won’t look up the abstract. When possible, highlight the main finding in the title. Instead of “An evaluation of a novel teaching method,” you could say, “Novel teaching method associated with higher resident satisfaction” or something like that.
Abstract
If the title is catchy or describes a topic that the reader is interested in, they will go on to the abstract. For many people, the abstract is the only thing they read. So, an abstract must be clear, well-written, and accurately describe what the paper is going to say. Abstracts, by their nature, are short, usually 150-250 words, and are structured with four sections: background/objectives, methods, results, and discussion. A strong abstract makes a brief case for the gap this study aims to fill, then describes how the authors addressed the research question. We want reviewers to comment on whether the abstract is well written, clear, and accurately describes the study. We also want reviewers to let us know if the main findings are captured in the abstract.
Introduction
Often, when you are chosen as a reviewer, you are a content expert and know the literature on a given topic. In that case, you will know if an author leaves out essential papers. It is common for authors to write introductions that are too long because they don’t want to leave anything out. It is your job as a reviewer to evaluate whether important background articles are included, but the author doesn’t make any detours (i.e., start talking about a peripheral topic). Writing experts coach authors to start broad in the introduction and narrow the focus, so that the last sentence presents the paper’s research aims and explains how it fills a gap in the literature. As a rule, the introduction should be about the same length as the other sections of the paper. An excellent guide to writing introductions is this paper by HG Welch: https://cancer.dartmouth.edu/sites/default/files/2019-05/papertrail.pdf. When new authors struggle with writing the introduction, we will often refer them to this paper. Essentially, it outlines how to write a three-paragraph introduction using the questions:
1. What is the global problem?
2. What is the specific issue?
3. How does this paper help?
Methods
The methods section of a research paper should clearly describe the “how” of the study. What did the researchers do? We want enough detail so that someone at a different institution could replicate the study if needed. If you did pre- and post-evaluations of an educational intervention, what questions did you use, when did you administer the surveys, etc.? Reviewers want to see a statistical assessment and a justification for the researchers’ choice of statistical methodology. Reviewers do not want to see any results in the methods section. Does the methodology of this study make sense to answer the stated research question? Is the methodology based on any theoretical models? The methods section must describe how the authors got the information that will be shared later in the results section of the paper. Everything in the methods section should map out well to the results section. If the authors do not say how they got the data in this section, they should not report it in the next section. This is also true for the abstract.
A note about statistics: most reviewers will not be expert statisticians (the editors may choose a reviewer who is if the paper needs it). Most quantitative studies will include basic statistics. If the authors use some statistical test that you have never heard of, they will need to explain why in the methods section. All methods sections should have a detailed description of how the data was analyzed (whether quantitative or qualitative).
Results
While the methods section describes what you did, the results section describes what you found. One common mistake that reviewers often see is the lack of specifics around surveys. How many people received the survey? How many people responded? What is the response rate? Do you know anything about the people who didn’t respond (i.e. demographics)? Findings from the research should be described either in text (in the results section) or in a table. Some people use the text in the results section to give a high-level overview of the results and highlight key findings, then put the actual data into a table. Tables traditionally do not count toward a word limit, so they are a great way to add more content without using many words. Reviewers should comment on whether the methods described can produce the results reported. Look for areas where the results are not reflected in the methods and vice versa. The Welch article listed above can be very helpful in crafting methods and results sections as well.
Make sure to read Part 3 of this blog series where we will discuss what to look for in the discussion section, in tables and figures, and in references.
STFM Blog 