CV Writing Tips and Advice
Job hunting alone can be a stressful process without having to worry about if your CV is written appropriately. This article will provide you with some tips to help alleviate the anxiety that comes with writing your CV and some tricks to help it stand out to potential employers.
Equipping your CV with a personal statement will help it stand out to employers. If positioned at the top of the first page, it’ll be the first thing that employers read and, if worded attractively, will entice them to keep reading. You should use this statement to focus on your best qualities and tailor it to the job you’re seeking.
The skills section of your CV should highlight pertinent skills that can help you excel at the job in question. Whether it is advanced computer skills, team-building, written or verbal communication, or problem solving skills make sure they relate to the job you are pursuing. Another way to make this section stand out is to utilize bullet points when listing these skills to give readers a quick and focused snapshot of the skills you have to offer.
Recent Employment vs. Older Positions
Employers will focus most of their attention on your most recent employment. So it’s crucial to make this section as detailed as possible. Use language that’s positive and shows that your current or most recent responsibilities can translate to the job you’re pursuing. Try to show, in your summary of recent employment, that you’ve had a positive impact in your position.
If you have many years of experience in your industry, you don’t have to elaborate as much on your older positions. A shorter summary of your responsibilities should be sufficient.
Length and Language
Time is precious to potential employers, so it’s important to be clear, concise and keep your CV to no longer than two pages. Show that you have good communication skills by using professional language — and always use spell-check prior to sending it forward. You want to catch the attention of the employer so that they’ll bring you in for an interview. During the interview you will have the opportunity to elaborate on your skills and expertise.
As you should always customize your CV to the role you’re pursuing, researching the role and company are key. You’ll want to know in advance what the company prides itself on and the qualities needed to be successful in the position you are applying for. Not only will this be helpful when writing your CV, but it will also benefit you if you land an interview.
- Terms of Service
- © 2023 Ask Media Group, LLC
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.
- Account settings
- Advanced Search
- Journal List
- Indian J Endocrinol Metab
- v.16(6); Nov-Dec 2012
Writing for publication in a medical journal
R. grant steen.
Medical Communications Consultants, LLC, 103 Van Doren Place, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
The essence of writing for publication in the medical field is distilled into a dozen precepts to guide the anxious author. These precepts focus on the attitude of the writer, rather than the mechanics of writing. A medical author must strive to be the following: Original, honest, innovative, organized, careful, clear, modest, fair-minded, frank, persistent, rigorous, and realistic. These attributes are essential because there is a new climate of skepticism among the lay public as to the validity of scientific and medical claims. This climate has encouraged journal editors to be demanding of authors and to be especially vigilant about plagiarism; originality of all contributions is therefore essential.
There is always a danger in writing about writing. The effort can look presumptuous, in that few writers are truly in a position to tender advice; more medical writers are workmanlike than inspired. Writing a paper about writing a paper can also seem futile because guidelines have to be so broad as to be vague. Practical advice about writing a research report is necessarily different from advice about writing a systematic review or a case report.
Still, there can be no doubt that scientists writing their first paper need guidance, and such guidance can be hard to find. With full awareness that this effort may seem both presumptuous and futile, the lessons of a career in writing are distilled into a few precepts to guide the anxious author. These precepts focus on the attitude of the writer, and leave practical advice as to the mechanics of writing to other authors.[ 1 ]
B E O RIGINAL
Lack of originality is the cardinal sin in a creative field. Using the words or thoughts of someone else without adequately crediting that person is plagiarism.[ 2 ] Lack of originality can include plagiarism of words, of ideas, or of one's own already published work. Plagiarism can have serious consequences, including retraction of papers, suspension or firing of authors, and other legal actions.[ 2 ] In fact, up to 29% of all papers retracted were faulted for some form of plagiarism,[ 3 ] and authors in India have been responsible for about 6% of retractions worldwide.[ 4 ] Some believe that India cannot emerge as a global player in science and medicine until plagiarism is reduced, so a “National Plan of Action” has been proposed.[ 5 ]
A distinction has been made between theft of words and theft of data.[ 3 ] Theft of words is clearly plagiarism, but theft of data is a more serious crime that has been called data fabrication. Theft of words can happen inadvertently, whereas theft of data is always a calculated act. As scientists, our first duty is to defend the authenticity of data; the originality of words is more a concern of writers and publishers, which many scientists do not aspire to be. Though this viewpoint is controversial, plagiarism of words could be considered error, whereas plagiarism of data must be considered fraud.[ 3 ]
The essence of plagiarism is that the writer claims something as his own when it is not his to claim.[ 6 ] Failing to give credit where credit is due amounts to theft from the owner of that material. Such theft may not be a material loss to the owner since in academic circles, no exchange of money is usually involved. Yet, it is certainly a material gain to the person who appropriates such material, making the plagiarist seem more creative or more diligent or more intelligent than is warranted.[ 6 ]
Plagiarism can be hard to avoid, especially when writing in English for the first time.[ 7 ] Authors often have difficulty expressing their ideas or using the idiom of science. Some authors believe it is a form of flattery to use the words of a mentor, or that there is little harm in borrowing phrases that may describe findings better than more original words. Yet, the attitude in science is that recycling of words without attribution is a crime.[ 7 ] Interestingly, when plagiarism-detection software was used to assess all submissions to a single journal, 11% of manuscripts were found to have some degree of plagiarism, with the average extent of theft in plagiarized manuscripts amounting to about 25% of the text.[ 8 ] Generally, the extent of plagiarism was highest in the Materials and Methods section,[ 8 ] confirming that plagiarism is most likely in describing experimental methods.
Self-plagiarism, the act of extensively borrowing words from one's own published work, is strongly discouraged.[ 9 ] Some people dismiss this practice by saying that it is impossible to steal anything from oneself, and that self-plagiarism is no worse than laziness. But the net result of repeated self-plagiarism is that the productivity of a researcher is artificially elevated. Thus, a degree of deception is involved in self-plagiarism.[ 9 ] Because professional advancement and scientific reputation depend upon research productivity, self-plagiarism is a form of theft from the scientific establishment. As a practical matter, some journals use a guideline that up to 30% of the words in a paper can be recycled by an author from a previous paper, but no data, whatsoever, can be recycled.[ 10 ]
B E H ONEST
Writers must be scrupulously, unrelentingly, and totally honest in their work because any dishonesty will eventually be discovered and fabricated or falsified data is judged harshly.[ 3 , 4 , 11 – 13 ]
Science is generally thought to be self-correcting; scientists are eager to criticize new work and to fault established wisdom. For example, there has been an ongoing debate as to whether the results presented a century ago by Gregor Mendel, the father of modern genetics, are too good to be true.[ 14 ] Mendel bred pea plants together in various combinations to understand how individual plant traits are expressed through the generations. His work was eventually accepted as the first physical evidence of genes. However, R. A. Fischer, the father of modern statistics, did a detailed statistical analysis and concluded that Mendel's data were too close to the ideal expected if experiments had involved a larger sample size. This suggests that Mendel may have “edited” his data after collecting it,[ 14 ] a transgression that would now be called data falsification.[ 3 ] The point is not that Mendel was dishonest; we cannot know this with certainty. Yet, we do know that his results are still being examined and questioned more than a century after the fact.
B E I NNOVATIVE
Attacking the same problems with the same tools will often yield the same results; it can be useful to approach an old problem in a new way. For example, personalized medicine has caused a paradigm shift in oncology; the idea that each patient should be treated in a way individually tailored to the genes unique to their tumor has caused a great deal of excitement. Yet, it is only recently that the idea of personalized medicine has come to diabetology.
For many years, the goal of treatment of type II diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has been to lower glycemic levels as close to normal as is safely possible.[ 15 ] Tight glycemic control is known to reduce complications of the disease that affect the eye, kidney, and nerve. Although T2DM is heterogeneous – in terms of presentation and pathogenesis – patients tend to be treated in similar ways. Hence, it cannot be surprising that current T2DM therapies often fail to achieve glycemic control, particularly over the long term. Somewhat more than half of all diabetics achieve the goal of glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) <7%, so patients are at risk of eventual diabetic complications.[ 15 ] Insight into the genetic variability that probably underlies the heterogeneity in clinical presentation is an innovative clinical strategy. Identification of the Kir6.2 mutations as potentially responsible for several forms of maturity-onset diabetes, as well as a better understanding of the polygenic nature of T2DM, suggests that personalized medicine may enable better glycemic control in patients.[ 15 ]
B E O RGANIZED
There is a specific structure to a science paper, as formal and as circumscribed as haiku poetry (see http://www.ijem.in/contributors.asp ). If writers do not use that structure, they are unlikely to get published. This may seem a trivial point in that a good idea badly argued is more easily fixed than a bad idea well argued. But people are busy; if an author does not organize his writing, why would anyone read it?
The key thing in writing science papers is to first finalize the data. All tables and figures should be put in final form before anything else is attempted. Then throw out your preconceptions and look at the data with a fresh eye; what story do the data tell? Jot down conclusions looking at the data as a new reader would, without thinking about what you were trying to prove. Sometimes the story that emerges is not the story you intended to tell, but as long as the story is driven by data, the story is worth telling in a paper.
B E C AREFUL
It is often little details that trip up big ideas. Recently, Einstein's theory of relativity seemed at risk, because European physicists had detected subatomic particles known as neutrinos that seemed to be moving faster than the speed of light.[ 16 ] Yet, newer evidence suggests that the excess speed of neutrinos may really have been excess zeal of the neutrino-detecting scientists.[ 17 ] When the apparatus used to make the measurement was carefully examined, a loose wire was found that made neutrinos appear to move faster than they were actually going.[ 17 ]
A misplaced decimal point, a cut-and-paste error in a table, a crucial typo, a tiny miscalculation – each of these minor errors has sunk many papers. Check every number two or three times, then put the paper aside, come back to it with fresh eyes, and check it again. The accuracy of the data is the first concern; you cannot have good science without reliable numbers.
The ideas in science are so complex that the words used to describe those ideas should be simple. Verbal excess and flowery language must be avoided; prose should be clear and direct. Acronyms never add clarity, though they can sometimes help with economy of words; nevertheless, acronyms do more harm than good.
Clarity is especially important in the Results section, the beating heart of a paper.[ 1 ] Writers should lead readers through the results with clear, direct sentences. Writing should convey competence and professional authority and that is often accomplished by writing in first person and using the active voice. Active voice emphasizes the agent of an action; passive voice emphasizes the result of an action. “We analyzed the results” is clearer than “The results were analyzed,” because the latter formulation leaves open the question of who performed the action.
In a paper, as in a mathematical formula, less is more. Clarity can only be achieved by direct thinking, which is associated with direct writing. Precision of thought is important, and concision of words is a useful marker for it. It is easier to generate confusion with many words than with few. If concision reveals a paucity of ideas, then do not write more; think more. The most important biology paper of the last century was extremely short – Watson and Crick's description of the structure of DNA in Nature [ 18 ] was scarcely a page long – yet, it revolutionized biology.
B E M ODEST
It is a major mistake to claim too much credit, whether for the strength of your data or for the originality of your ideas. Science is an iterative process by which we approach the truth in tiny steps. None of us would be where we are without people before us who blazed a trail; none of us could have followed that trail without mentors and colleagues. Modesty is not merely appealing; it is essential.
A model of scientific modesty is provided by the penultimate paragraph of Watson and Crick's famous paper on DNA:[ 18 ] “It has not escaped our notice that the specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material.”
B E F AIR -M INDED
Do not misrepresent an argument merely to demolish it as this is intellectually dishonest.[ 19 ] You cannot be certain you are right, so you cannot know that others are wrong. In science, we struggle to illuminate the darkness of ignorance and darkness always resists light.
One way to be sure you are fair-minded is to circulate your manuscript among colleagues. This is particularly valuable if you have a colleague with whom you have disagreed. A disagreement about a paper prior to submission can result in a stronger paper; a disagreement about a paper after publication can harm a career. You should also offer to review your colleague's papers prior to submission.
Flaws and weaknesses are present in every paper; be open about the blemishes in your paper. This does not diminish your work; it builds credibility for you as an investigator and opens a door for others to follow you. For example, India was estimated to have 51 million people with diabetes.[ 20 ] But this estimate was based on small, often under-powered studies done in various parts of the country, and methods were heterogeneous between studies. Component studies were weakened by differing diagnostic criteria, unconfirmed preliminary diagnoses, local, regional, and ethnic differences, poor characterization of measurement error, and spotty coverage in rural areas.[ 20 ] It may seem an error to confess such weaknesses openly in the literature, but it creates a spectacular research opportunity. Because these various weaknesses were known, a national study on the prevalence of diabetes in India was proposed.[ 20 ] When the national study was done, it was found that there are actually about 62 million people with diabetes in India,[ 21 ] 11 million more than had been predicted.[ 20 ]
B E P ERSISTENT
Your work may not be recognized as worthy of publication the first time it is submitted to a journal. This is the normal course of events; most journals will not accept a paper on first submission even from a prominent author, so the novice writer should not be discouraged.
Your paper may require a rewrite; after all, which paper cannot be improved? But it may also be true that the journal was not a good fit for your paper. The best course of action is to put the review of your manuscript in a drawer and leave it there until the sting of rebuke wears off. Then, being as dispassionate as possible, go through your manuscript with the comments in hand and see which of those comments are helpful.
If the referees enable you to see something which you did not see before, or if the referees have made an error that you can persuasively counter, then it may be possible to resubmit your manuscript to the original journal. If you cannot respond to all of the comments by either altering your manuscript or rebutting the criticism, then it may be time to pick another journal for submission. Often a clue as to which journal provides the best fit for your paper is to look at the references cited. There can be an alignment between what a journal has published in the past and what that journal is likely to publish in the future.
Many papers go through an odyssey of submission and rejection before they finally achieve publication and some papers are finally published in a journal more prestigious than the original journal of submission. Writing and submitting papers requires a thick skin and a resilient nature.
B E R IGOROUS
You can never “prove” a hypothesis; you can only fail to disprove it.[ 22 ] Of 276 studies published in Indian journals in 2009, roughly 5% claimed that an insignificant P value proved the null hypothesis. This is incorrect; if a study is inadequately powered, it likely will fail to identify a difference between treatment groups.[ 22 ]
Careful analysis of the medical literature has revealed that statistics are misused in a great many papers and in a variety of creative ways.[ 23 ] Many statistical errors have been identified, which break down into five broad categories: Flaws in study design, in data analysis, in documentation of statistical methods used, in presentation of data, and in interpretation of findings.[ 23 ] Statistical software is widely available, yet such software requires knowledge of the assumptions inherent to the statistical tests and of their limitations. Statistical errors in published papers are so common that a statistician should be involved at study inception, to minimize damaging errors.
B E R EALISTIC
If something is statistically significant, that does not mean that it is clinically significant, and clinical significance is far more important.[ 24 ] A study that enrolls a great many people and finds a tiny difference upon treatment may achieve statistical significance and still mean nothing for a patient. Reality is strained when clinical trials use composite endpoints that make the trial more likely to obtain a positive result because such endpoints also make it harder to determine if a new patient will benefit from treatment.[ 24 ] For example, the JUPITER trial[ 25 ] enrolled 17,802 apparently healthy men and women and treated them with rosuvastatin for 1.9 years. The primary outcome measure was, “the occurrence of a first major cardiovascular event, defined as nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, an arterial revascularization procedure, or confirmed death from cardiovascular causes.”
This composite endpoint conflates medical events that vary greatly in severity.[ 26 ] A nonfatal stroke may not impinge much on the patient, whereas death is hard to ignore. This compound endpoint may have falsely inflated the odds that medication would be deemed helpful. The JUPITER trial may have been unrealistic in other ways as well. Cardiovascular mortality was surprisingly low, since healthy people were enrolled and the trial was prematurely terminated. Because few primary endpoints were observed, results are more prone to statistical fluke than if there had been many cardiovascular deaths over a long follow-up period. Thus, JUPITER may not present a realistic picture of the potential benefits of statins in healthy people.[ 26 ]
I cannot promise that if all these precepts are followed, publication will follow; talent, energy, and luck are also required. I cannot promise that publication will get easier over time; each new paper presents unique difficulties. I cannot promise that every paper will garner praise and honors, once it is written up; writing is just the last step in research and strong writing cannot compensate for a weak experiment. But I can promise that seeing the first publication – or even the hundredth publication – will be a thrill.
Source of Support: Nil
Conflict of Interest: None declared.
I’d Like to Write a Medical Article, But…
Have you ever dreamed of seeing your name in print our intrepid editorialist provides guidance on preparing a clinical manuscript for publication..
Randy D. Danielsen PhD, PA-C, DFAAPA
For almost 10 years, I have had the privilege of teaching an online medical writing course for two health science universities. The premise is that health professionals must be able to present their work clearly and proficiently. Excellent educational material and important research data, however, are sometimes buried in poorly written papers.
The truth is, writing a good medical paper is a complex task. It requires inspired energy, quiet reflection, and yes, time in which to do it. Now that I’ve lost most of you (ha ha) ….
The first question I ask my students is what prevents them from writing. The six biggest impediments are time constraints and/or competing interests; limited experience in writing/inadequate knowledge of the process; fear of inadequacy; lack of passion; procrastination; and lack of mentorship. If this sounds familiar, and you’d like to break through these barriers, please allow me to offer some guidance derived from more than 30 years’ experience.
The first question we have to answer is: Why write, anyway? There are many reasons; six are listed in the box below.
Once you’ve decided you want to try your hand at medical writing, it is essential to develop a plan for carrying it out. It can be a long and arduous process, but without a strategy, it is nearly impossible to complete. Following are eight steps to ease the process—or at least make it palatable.
1. Find the topic that you are most passionate about, whether it is a particular case that you want to share with others or a topic you want to learn more about. The first article I wrote (circa 1979) was on Hodgkin’s disease. My father had recently died of that condition, and I wanted to better understand it. Topics, of course, should be of relevance from either a medical, practice, or academic standpoint. Be creative but realistic—topics should be focused and feasible. Above all, you should have something interesting to say.
2. Look at past issues of your professional journals to see what types of articles they accept. Some may not accept original research, while for others that is the primary focus. Also, visit the “Instructions for Authors” page ( CR ’s can be found at https://bit.ly/16OmNW9 ) and review that information. You should follow the guidelines to the letter unless otherwise instructed by the editor. In fact, it is a good idea to contact the editor and share your idea before you begin your work.
3. Start writing. A blank page is very intimidating. Get your ideas down on paper early (giving yourself permission to revise later!). Think about the main message of your article and what you hope to achieve by writing it. What is the one provocative thought you would like to leave with your audience? And who is that audience: the general public or medical professionals? Create a general outline with an introduction, discussion, and conclusion.
4. Perform a focused literature review. A literature review—basically an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers—can help you narrow your focus. It also gives the reader confidence that you have understood the main theoretical positions of the subject matter and can integrate that material coherently into your own article. The literature review also provides an idea of the scope of published work in your field, enabling you to identify gaps in knowledge and avoid repetition—lending greater credibility to your work. 2
5. Revise! Good papers are the product of many revisions—usually in response to feedback from others. That means you need to get over your fear of criticism and ask colleagues for advice. (I have two trusted colleagues—they know who they are!—who are critical to a fault of my drafts. But I thank them for it!) Since readability is crucial, you might even want to read your work out loud to determine whether your points are clearly made and easily understood. 3 Then give yourself time to step back, digest your colleagues’ feedback, and re-read with a new perspective.
Revision also entails checking for consistency, eliminating redundancy, and deleting unnecessary information. Make sure every sentence and paragraph has a purpose. Yes, it’s time-consuming, and time is often at a premium. But if you undertake to write an article, make the time to do it correctly. Don’t rush the process.
6. Create your “accessories.” The title and abstract are the first—possibly the only—parts of your paper that an editor (and, if you’re successful, a reader) will read. Spend some quality time developing them so they accurately and adequately express the focus of your article, as well as why the subject matter is beneficial to readers. Another key element is figures and tables; visuals draw attention, so ensure you have some compelling data to present in this format. They can also be vital “take-aways” for readers to refer to in the future.
- MDedge Home
- Clinician Reviews
- Emergency Medicine
- Family Medicine
- Federal Practitioner
- Infectious Disease
- Internal Medicine
- Obstetrics And Gynecology
- PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
- EDIT Edit this Article
- EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
- Browse Articles
- Learn Something New
- Quizzes Hot
- This Or That Game New
- Train Your Brain
- Explore More
- Support wikiHow
- About wikiHow
- Log in / Sign up
- Education and Communications
- College University and Postgraduate
- Academic Writing
- Research Papers
How to Write a Medical Research Paper
Last Updated: May 29, 2020 Approved
This article was co-authored by Chris M. Matsko, MD . Dr. Chris M. Matsko is a retired physician based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. With over 25 years of medical research experience, Dr. Matsko was awarded the Pittsburgh Cornell University Leadership Award for Excellence. He holds a BS in Nutritional Science from Cornell University and an MD from the Temple University School of Medicine in 2007. Dr. Matsko earned a Research Writing Certification from the American Medical Writers Association (AMWA) in 2016 and a Medical Writing & Editing Certification from the University of Chicago in 2017. wikiHow marks an article as reader-approved once it receives enough positive feedback. In this case, 89% of readers who voted found the article helpful, earning it our reader-approved status. This article has been viewed 197,276 times.
Writing a medical research paper is similar to writing other research papers in that you want to use reliable sources, write in a clear and organized style, and offer a strong argument for all conclusions you present. In some cases the research you discuss will be data you have actually collected to answer your research questions. Understanding proper formatting, citations, and style will help you write and informative and respected paper.
Researching Your Paper
- Pick something that really interests you to make the research more fun.
- Choose a topic that has unanswered questions and propose solutions.
- Quantitative studies consist of original research performed by the writer. These research papers will need to include sections like Hypothesis (or Research Question), Previous Findings, Method, Limitations, Results, Discussion, and Application.
- Synthesis papers review the research already published and analyze it. They find weaknesses and strengths in the research, apply it to a specific situation, and then indicate a direction for future research.
- Keep track of your sources. Write down all publication information necessary for citation: author, title of article, title of book or journal, publisher, edition, date published, volume number, issue number, page number, and anything else pertaining to your source. A program like Endnote can help you keep track of your sources.
- Take detailed notes as you read. Paraphrase information in your own words or if you copy directly from the article or book, indicate that these are direct quotes by using quotation marks to prevent plagiarism.
- Be sure to keep all of your notes with the correct source.
- Your professor and librarians can also help you find good resources.
- Keep all of your notes in a physical folder or in a digitized form on the computer.
- Start to form the basic outline of your paper using the notes you have collected.
Writing Your Paper
- Start with bullet points and then add in notes you've taken from references that support your ideas.  X Trustworthy Source PubMed Central Journal archive from the U.S. National Institutes of Health Go to source
- A common way to format research papers is to follow the IMRAD format. This dictates the structure of your paper in the following order: I ntroduction, M ethods, R esults, a nd D iscussion.  X Research source
- The outline is just the basic structure of your paper. Don't worry if you have to rearrange a few times to get it right.
- Ask others to look over your outline and get feedback on the organization.
- Know the audience you are writing for and adjust your style accordingly.  X Research source
- Use a standard font type and size, such as Times New Roman 12 point font.
- Double-space your paper.
- If necessary, create a cover page. Most schools require a cover page of some sort. Include your main title, running title (often a shortened version of your main title), author's name, course name, and semester.
- Break up information into sections and subsections and address one main point per section.
- Include any figures or data tables that support your main ideas.
- For a quantitative study, state the methods used to obtain results.
- Clearly state and summarize the main points of your research paper.
- Discuss how this research contributes to the field and why it is important.  X Research source
- Highlight potential applications of the theory if appropriate.
- Propose future directions that build upon the research you have presented.  X Research source
- Keep the introduction and discussion short, and spend more time explaining the methods and results.  X Research source
- State why the problem is important to address.
- Discuss what is currently known and what is lacking in the field.
- State the objective of your paper.
- Keep the introduction short.
- Highlight the purpose of the paper and the main conclusions.
- State why your conclusions are important.
- Be concise in your summary of the paper.
- Show that you have a solid study design and a high-quality data set.
- Abstracts are usually one paragraph and between 250 – 500 words.
- Unless otherwise directed, use the American Medical Association (AMA) style guide to properly format citations.
- Add citations at end of a sentence to indicate that you are using someone else's idea. Use these throughout your research paper as needed. They include the author's last name, year of publication, and page number.
- Compile your reference list and add it to the end of your paper.
- Use a citation program if you have access to one to simplify the process.
- Continually revise your paper to make sure it is structured in a logical way.
- Proofread your paper for spelling and grammatical errors.
- Make sure you are following the proper formatting guidelines provided for the paper.
- Have others read your paper to proofread and check for clarity. Revise as needed.
- Ask your professor for help if you are stuck or confused about any part of your research paper. They are familiar with the style and structure of papers and can provide you with more resources. Thanks Helpful 1 Not Helpful 0
- Refer to your professor's specific guidelines. Some instructors modify parts of a research paper to better fit their assignment. Others may request supplementary details, such as a synopsis for your research project . Thanks Helpful 1 Not Helpful 0
- Set aside blocks of time specifically for writing each day. Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0
- Do not plagiarize. Plagiarism is using someone else's work, words, or ideas and presenting them as your own. It is important to cite all sources in your research paper, both through internal citations and on your reference page. Thanks Helpful 4 Not Helpful 2
You Might Also Like
- ↑ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3178846/
- ↑ http://owl.excelsior.edu/research-and-citations/outlining/outlining-imrad/
- ↑ http://china.elsevier.com/ElsevierDNN/Portals/7/How%20to%20write%20a%20world-class%20paper.pdf
- ↑ http://intqhc.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/3/191
- ↑ https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/wp-content/uploads/v23n2p039-044.pdf
- ↑ http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~bioslabs/tools/report/reportform.html#form
About This Article
To write a medical research paper, research your topic thoroughly and compile your data. Next, organize your notes and create a strong outline that breaks up the information into sections and subsections, addressing one main point per section. Write the results and discussion sections first to go over your findings, then write the introduction to state your objective and provide background information. Finally, write the abstract, which concisely summarizes the article by highlighting the main points. For tips on formatting and using citations, read on! Did this summary help you? Yes No
- Send fan mail to authors
Reader Success Stories
Jun 5, 2018
Did this article help you?
Aug 16, 2016
Apr 2, 2017
Noura Ammar Alhossiny
Feb 14, 2017
Apr 20, 2017
- Do Not Sell or Share My Info
- Not Selling Info
Get all the best how-tos!
Sign up for wikiHow's weekly email newsletter