PLOS Mental Health Author Tips Part 2/3: Writing Manuscripts as an ECR or Independent Researcher

The central component of the PLOS Mental Health mission is to be a platform for a diverse range of authors that represent the communities we aim to serve. This requires continued efforts to support and promote the work of early career researchers (ECRs) as well as independent researchers and advocates. However, we know that for those who have not routinely written academic manuscripts, it can be difficult to know where to start or feel confident about what is needed.

In the second blog of this short series of author tips, we run through some guidance for writing a Research Article. Although this resource is written specifically for those who do not have a lot of academic writing experience, there may be some useful reminders for everyone. 

Although it can be daunting even knowing where to start, for the purpose of this post, we are assuming that you have your research question, data and conclusions, and are ready with an idea of what you want to say – it is just a case of putting it all together in a compelling but transparent and pragmatic way, that guides the reader through your story. We will break down the guidance by section…

• Title
• Abstract
• Introduction
• Materials and Methods
• Results
• Figures
• Discussion
• Conclusion
• Supplementary Information
• Data Reporting and Availability
• Acknowledgements
• Citations and References
• Other Considerations
  • Getting feedback
  • Selecting your journal
  • Does my cover letter matter?
  • What order do I write the article?

Title: A reader’s first filter

We all know that more people will read your title than the entire paper. Good titles are declarative and concise – so every word is important and readers need to know what you did and how. Ask yourself – if your title was read in isolation, would the reader know what to expect from the paper?

It is also a good idea to consider keywords, which will improve the discoverability, and therefore the reach, of your article. Be mindful of jargon or region-specific puns or terminology, which may limit the reach of the message to international readers. 

Abstract: The concise overview

We touched on some tips for writing an abstract in the previous blog of this series. The abstract, which at PLOS, should not be greater than 300 words, serves to provide an overview of your project and in particular how the findings or message contribute to the field. In our last post we also highlighted how a clear and compelling abstract could potentially help with the peer review process as invited reviewers will be provided with the abstract in isolation when deciding whether or not to review your article.

Your abstract should flow (conceptually) from background information, to methods and principle findings, and then finish with conclusions. Although typically, headings should not actually be present within the abstract (at least, this is the case at PLOS – other publisher formats will vary so always check the specific requirements).

In terms of background, you should aim to very briefly introduce the topic and then focus on the importance of it as well as what has already been done and/or what the gap in the field is that your work plans to address. What is the key question that you are asking here? 

Information in the abstract regarding methods should give the reader an indication of the key approach/es taken and the results that you refer to should support the overarching take-home message of the paper and why it is important. You should not attempt to refer to every single finding in the study.

When writing your abstract, aim to make it as widely accessible as possible and try to avoid jargon – do not assume that all readers will have extensive background knowledge. It is also important to note that citations are not included in the abstract so it really is a very self-contained piece of writing.

Introduction: Setting the scene

In the introduction, you are setting the scene for the motivation of your work and preparing the readers for the journey of your paper as well as providing them with enough background to understand your discussion/conclusions.

It is usually best to start with context. This review of relevant literature should start off broad before narrowing down to the specific niche of your work and the issue that will be addressed in your study. Keep in mind readers who may be less familiar with the topic and so may not understand why it is so important or why it is needed. However, also keep it as concise as possible. Think about the key information that readers require to understand the need for your work

Once you have provided the context and need, you should introduce your specific question and approach. Moving into this part of the introduction should be accompanied by a clear separation of what is known, or what has already been done, to now explaining what the study is going to aim to address. 

Materials and Methods: The manual

The rule of thumb here is that the information provided is detailed and clear enough that others could repeat what you did. A few key pieces of information that are essential to keep in mind:

• What population was studied? (For most PLOS Mental Health submissions, this will almost always be a group of human participants. Please pay careful attention to our requirements for studies using people before you submit. 
• If the location is relevant, describe exactly where (and when) the study took place
• Describe the sampling design and how data was collected. If applicable, always refer to controls, variables, sample sizes and consent.
• Provide as much detail as possible about how the data was analyzed and which statistical procedures were used, including the probability level of significance that you employed
• It is important to avoid ambiguous terms throughout. 
• In terms of order, the methods used are usually listed in the order in which they appear in the results section
• Avoid any results or discussion in this section

As mentioned above, it is vital to be very clear and detailed about the analysis that you used. The methods section should specifically include a sub-section on your statistical analysis approach, with as much detail as possible regarding software,  parameters and tests used. 

Results: Presenting what you found

The results are where you tell your story, in the order that most clearly conveys the message. This does not need to be in the same order that you acquired your data but it does need to correspond to the order in which your figures are presented.

To help guide the reader and to keep them focused, use sub-headings and introduce each results paragraph with the take-home message of the subsequent results. You can then breakdown this message into the individual findings. Use the figures to guide your flow but do not reiterate every single value in your figures – just the key results from each figure. Readers can then choose to take a look at each individual value (in figures and supplementary information) if they wish to do so.

Be sure to report any negative results. In some cases, negative results or unexpected results are just as informative as expected results, if not more so. 

Avoid:

• Any interpretation or discussion of the results within this section (unless the format allows for your results and discussion to be merged, which can sometimes be easier for readers to understand the results).
• Repetition of text between the results and figure legends. 
• Using any references – this is a good way to tell if you have started to steer into discussion. You should only be presenting your data.
  
  

Figures: Tell your story visually

It is often most useful (and commonplace) to begin the writing process with your figures and data collated. The data presented in your figures tell your story with each figure having a clear (ideally one main) message. From your figures and legends, people should be able to understand what your results are – they should be self-explanatory. Indeed, many readers will start with the figures as an attempt to get as much information from them as possible, without always reading the whole paper. 

Always check the journal formatting requirements for figures. PLOS Mental Health does not require a specific format until formal acceptance of the paper – however presenting your figures with the formatting in mind and with the reviewers in mind will save you time down the line. 

Figure requirements will vary considerably between journals and between data types. Below are some general considerations, as well as some, which are most relevant to PLOS Mental Health and the type of data that would typically be included in submissions to the journal…

• All figures should be referred to in your text. And the text should only refer to data presented in figures.
• Each figure should have a clear and specific purpose.
• Keep your figures as streamline as possible – avoid unnecessary elements that will make them too complicated.
• Be selective. Choose data that is most impactful and supportive of your main conclusions. All other data should be presented in ‘Supplementary Information’ (see below). It is also vital to ensure that you do not repeat information across figures.
• Consider red-green colour blindness when choosing a colour scheme for your figures and be consistent with the colours and styles that you choose.
• Legends should be concise but informative – ensure that you explain the key points and define any abbreviations or symbols used. Use the figure title to communicate the main finding that the figure represents.
• Tables should be summary level data and easy to understand in isolation – anything more extensive should instead be part of your ‘Supplementary Information’.
• Check that you comply with journal requirements and be mindful of the requirements for figures that include depictions of humans
• Ensure that your figures do not include any images that have been previously copyrighted

Discussion: Giving your results meaning and connecting them to your original question/s

In the discussion, you should interpret your results in light of what was already known and explain how this expands our understanding without exaggerating the importance or novelty. 

It is important to avoid presenting any results that you do not go on to discuss and conversely, you should not discuss a finding that is not presented in your results. All results need to be relevant to the message of your paper and all conclusions need to be supported by data presented within the paper. Do not make (over)statements that cannot be supported by your presented data.

It is important to be realistic and clear about any limitations associated with your approach or data as well as alternative explanations. Similarly, if your results contradict previous research or are unexpected, do not gloss over this. Offer explanations as to why there may be differences. 

Consider the potential implications of your work. How does it inform the field (whether that is understanding, policy/practice changes or future research questions)?

Avoid introducing new concepts in the discussion. The Introduction should provide all of the background needed for readers to understand your interpretations.

Conclusion: The final summary and take-home

This may be the last paragraph of the Discussion or it may be a standalone section. In the Conclusion, you should focus on what you consider to be the most important overall outcome of your work. This should not be simply summarising the points that you have already made – this should be an interpretation of your main results at a ‘bigger picture’ level.

As is the case with the rest of your manuscript, it is important to be realistic here and to not overstate the significance or implications of your results. It is also useful to keep the readers in mind – what could your finding mean to the community or people reading the paper in search of understanding or recommendations? Finally, at the end of the conclusion, briefly share your perspective about what could follow on from this study- but it is useful to be clear about whether you intend to carry out the discussed plans yourself or you are instead encouraging others to consider future directions. 

Remember, you should not need to repeat what you have done. Focus on what the findings mean.

Supplementary Information: Supporting data and facilitating replication

All journals/publishers will have specific requirements or recommendations about what can and should be included in supplementary information. However supplementary information is not just about adhering to data reporting guidelines or being the place where you provide all data obtained that does not significantly contribute to the main message of your study or would clutter up the main figures. It can also be used to enhance your manuscript. Consider whether it is appropriate to include any schematics, videos or audio clips as these can be used to promote your work in creative and accessible ways.

In terms of the format used, this should be corresponding to the standard in your field and also in a form that is easily extracted to ensure wide accessibility. 

Data Reporting and Availability: Meeting standards

When preparing your manuscript you always need to be aware of the data reporting requirements of the journal you plan to submit to. Submitting your article and taking it through peer review and revisions will be time wasted for you, reviewers and editors if you cannot adhere to the data reporting guidelines. Whilst some journals will require all data to be provided upon submission, many will not mandate it until editorial acceptance – so be sure that you will be able to meet the requirements.

In terms of what data should be made available, across PLOS, all of the data necessary to replicate your analysis should be included (there can be exceptions to this however if there are legal or ethical restrictions) and the reasons for this include validation, replication, new potential insights (and therefore progress), reproducibility and preservation of data.

Many of our authors will use sensitive data in their work – usually for PLOS Mental Health, this is human research participant data. At PLOS, authors are encouraged to share de-identified or anonymized data whenever possible. However, we do appreciate that there are circumstances in which data cannot be publicly shared. In this case we allow authors to make their data sets available upon request, clearly explaining the conditions of accessing the data in the Data Availability Statement.

Data can be shared as part of Supplementary Information (see above) or deposited within a data repository (which PLOS strongly recommends). Locations of data deposition should be listed, with DOIs and accession numbers in your Data Availability Statement. 

Acknowledgements: Giving credit

Here is where you would thank those who have contributed to your paper, but not enough to have warranted authorship. At PLOS, funding information is not included in the acknowledgements.

Citations and References: Avoiding plagiarism

If you are expressing something that is not your own idea or you are paraphrasing, always cite your source to avoid plagiarism (which would usually be grounds for rejection)

You won’t have a choice about the formatting of your references – each publisher will have a required format. Find a tool that works for you to deliver that format. At PLOS, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), also referred to as the “Vancouver” style is used. You can take a look at any of our existing publications for examples if you are unsure what this format looks like.

Other considerations

Have you had any honest feedback on your manuscript before submission?

If possible, it is always recommended that you obtain feedback from others before you submit. Whilst you are the expert of your study, the readers won’t be and so you need the perspective of someone who may represent a typical reader (and editor and reviewer!). If this is not possible for whatever reason, take a step back from your writing and read the paper a while later with fresh eyes. 

Is the journal right for you?

Each journal/publisher will have specific formatting requirements and missions. Whilst many do not require you to submit the paper in the format that is needed by the time it is published, the journal you submit to will still influence the way you prepare your manuscript.

The key questions to ask yourself are

• Is my paper in scope for the journal?
• Does my study meet the requirements of the journal/publisher in terms of reporting and ethics?
• Am I comfortable with the mission of the journal? 

Does my cover letter matter?

At PLOS, the cover letters, which have a one page limit, give you the opportunity to ‘sell’ your paper to the Editor. It can be really useful to guide them about what the main message and importance of your paper is – which is especially helpful as Editors will not necessarily be experts in your exact field (although they will have related expertise). In short, the cover letter should include a summary of the study’s contribution to the field, how it continues on from your prior work (if relevant), and if there have been any interactions with PLOS prior to your submission (for instance, is this piece commissioned by a particular editor? Or did they encourage you to submit having discussed your work at a conference).

A good cover letter will set the scene for editors and help them understand what to expect before they have even started to read your paper. So yes, a clear and compelling (but realistic!) cover letter is important for the peer review process.

But what order do I actually write in?

Finally, the order you write your manuscript in is a personal choice and there is no right or wrong answer. But finding what works for you can make the preparation of a manuscript much easier. Usually, authors don’t write the paper in the order that the sections appear. Starting with your data – whether that is in the form of the figures or statements of each result – is a great starting point to determine the most appropriate order to present your work and what the main message will be. This then shapes the way you lead up to the objectives in your Introduction and how you interpret and give context to your results in the Discussion and Conclusion. 

Methods can be written any time as they will not change. You already have your data and so how that data was collected is now set in stone. So, many authors will write this first or even alongside data collection.

Most authors write, or at least finalize, the Abstract last as it is much easier to write it effectively once you have the context, flow of results and their implications clarified.

Although the above is by no means an exhaustive list of guidelines, and you should always carefully check individual journal requirements, we hope that the information provided here helps ECRs and independent researchers have a clearer understanding of what is expected, and more confidence when preparing their submissions. As well as the information provided within this post and associated PLOS guidelines, you can also take a look at our existing publications to see examples.