There are many reasons why surgeons want to publish their research. For some, it is a requirement of their position, or they wish to enhance their career and gain promotion. For others, there is a moral obligation to the study participants to disseminate the knowledge gained and improve the understanding of the orthopedic community. The best research approach is to choose a topic that you are passionate about and relevant to your clinical practice. Writing a manuscript is hard, and it is the last 10% of effort that makes the difference in producing a publishable paper. If the topic does not interest you, it is easy to let the manuscript preparation slide when you reach the final difficult stages. Don't be afraid of controversial issues to produce some of the most exciting papers. Several scientific articles can be made: Case reports, case series, case-control study, controlled study, systematic review or meta-analysis, and laboratory-based research. The goal of the manuscript is to present the importance of your research and your findings. Writing needs to be precise and compact, utilizing short, simple sentences while avoiding complex scientific jargon. You should be explicit and clear in describing the benefit of your paper. The paper's title should convey the impact of the results concisely. It should avoid reporting the results within the title. Writing a scientific manuscript requires a standardized construction, introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRAD). Although most scientific manuscripts are written in English, many readers will not have English as their primary language. It is imperative that the manuscript is easy to read and well organized and the language is simple.
1. Author Guidelines
Introduction
Are the objectives clear?
Is the importance of the study adequately emphasized?
Is the subject matter of the study new?
Is previous work on the subject adequately cited?
Materials and methods
Is the study design straightforward?
Are statistical methods included?
Are ethical considerations provided?
Is the study population detailed adequately?
Are the methods described well enough to reproduce
the experiment?
Results
Can the reader assess the results based on the data provided?
Is the information straightforward and not confusing?
Are there adequate controls?
Are statistical methods appropriate?
Discussion
Have you commented adequately on all their results?
Have you explained why and how their study differs
from others already published?
Have you discussed the potential problems and limitations of their study?
Do the results support the conclusions?
2. Frequent Author’s mistakes in preparing manuscripts
Introduction and discussion too long.
Lack of coherence and fluency in text.
Overly long review of the literature.
The incorrect tense of methods.
Lack of approval from the institutional review board.
Incomplete data.
Not including a detailed description of statistical methods.
Poor quality figures, graphs, and photos.
Not discussing limitations.
Concluding results beyond the study design.
3. Conclusions
Choose an interesting research topic.
Structure your manuscript in the IMRAD method.
Write in a clear, concise manner conveying the critical information.
Revise to eradicate errors and repetition.
The abstract should stimulate the reader to read the paper.
Explain what your research adds to the current knowledge.
Discuss the limitations of your study to encourage further research.
Persevere until your manuscript is accepted from publication.
1- Musahl V, Karlsson J, Hirschmann MT, Ayeni OR, Marx RG, Koh JL, Nakamura N (2019) In: Musahl V, Karlsson J, Hirschmann MT, Ayeni OR, Marx RG, Koh JL, Nakamura N (eds) Basic Methods Handbook for Clinical Orthopaedic Research. Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, pp 1–570 ISBN: 978–3–662-58253-4
2- Karlsson J, Reider B, Wojtys EM, Zaffagnini S. Tips and tricks for building a good paper: what editors want. J Exp Orthop. 2020 Jul 28;7(1):57. doi: 10.1186/s40634-020-00273-3. PMID: 32720234; PMCID: PMC7385048.