Available via license: CC BY-NC 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
105
https://www.escienceediting.org Copyright © 2023 Korean Council of Science Editors
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
pISSN 2288-8063
eISSN 2288-7474
Received: September 23, 2022
Accepted: October 31, 2022
Correspondence to Jean Iwaz
jean.iwaz@chu-lyon.fr
ORCID
Jean Iwaz
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5090-8215
Training Material
Sci Ed 2023;10(1):105-108
https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.288
Before you click “submit,” be your own first
reviewer
Jean Iwaz
Université de Lyon, Lyon; Université Lyon 1 Claude Bernard, Villeurbanne; Service de Biostatistique-Bioinformatique, Pôle
Santé Publique, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon; Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Évolutive, Équipe Biostatistique-Santé,
Villeurbanne, France
Abstract
For various reasons, despite previous linguistic, formatting, and other checks, beginner-
authored or multi-authored manuscripts may be rushed to submission while lacking con-
sistency. This article provides a clear outline of the final round of checks for section con-
sistency, subsection consistency, and overall coherence that a scientific manuscript should
undergo before submission. Checks for consistency should target the following: consisten-
cy between full and short titles; the exact answer in conclusion to research objectives (ques-
tions) and matching between methods and results in the abstract; consistency from a com-
prehensive view of the research field to the announcement of a single specific objective in
the introduction section; coherence between methods and results sections and between
results and illustrations in the rest of the text; and, recalls of the objective, the results, and
the conclusions in the discussion section. Finally, consistency should be ensured between
the various sections of the abstract and those of the manuscript, with the ideal abstract be-
ing a true miniature of the manuscript. An original figure provides a handy visual checklist
authors might use to implement and achieve manuscript drafting. This round of checks
increases readability, comprehensibility, confidence in the results, and the credibility of
the authors. Subsequently, confidence and credibility will increase the probability of pub-
lication and the visibility of a whole team’s work.
Keywords
Comprehension; Linguistics; Probability; Publishing; Peer review
Introduction
Writing a scientific article is not easy [1,2]. Writing a pleasant scientific article is much more
difficult. That said, one might object that a scientific article is not intended to be pleasant; it is
not a novel [3]. This feeling is right, but a scientific article should nevertheless be as smooth as
possible (providing the specialty and subject allow smoothness) or, at the least, easy to follow.
Jean Iwaz
https://www.escienceediting.org
106 | Sci Ed 2023;10(1):105-108
Fig. 1. Subsection consistencies to check within a scientific manuscript. The
dotted arrows denote alternatives.
In the everyday experience of scientific authors, finishing
an article is as tedious as the number of authors is high [4].
Indeed, despite modern digital tools, the final revisions by all
authors might be the longest and the most “politically tricky”
step of the writing process because introducing even minor
corrections by one author might not please the others. Fur-
thermore, additions or minor corrections scattered through-
out various locations of the text may challenge its coherence.
Consequently, to end a complicated, time-consuming pre-
submission ping-pong process, a decision is taken to submit
the article as it is, with the hope that the reviewers will come
up with a pacifying decision or authoritative comments [5].
Thus, many scientific articles might be submitted without
undergoing an array of important checks whose results are
beneficial because they make any scientific article much more
readable and easier to follow. These checks aim to ensure the
overall consistency (i.e., logical coherence) of an article and
even that of its sections and subsections (Fig. 1). In this article,
I would like to present the checks that authors should carry
out before submitting a manuscript to a journal.
Checks for Consistency
Consistency of the titles
First, consistency should exist between the main title and the
running (or short) title. This is obvious but not always care-
fully checked because the running title might be hastily—and
thus, poorly—formulated just at the time the submission sys-
tem solicits it. Supplying a running title that gives the same
meaning, content, perspective, and promise as the title is not
always straightforward [6]. Sometimes, searching for such a
short title leads to changing the long title; this results in a
more accurate and evocative main title [7].
Consistency of the abstract
The abstract should be consistent in two aspects. First, consis-
tency should exist between the study’s objective (or purpose)
and its conclusion. When the two correspond and are accu-
rate and true, the abstract inspires confidence in the whole
study. Otherwise, the reviewer may feel somewhat misled.
Second, consistency, or a kind of parallelism, should exist be-
tween the abstract’s methods and results [8]. In other words,
each sentence of the results should tell the outcome of each
procedure mentioned in the methods. This echoing also in-
spires confidence. Otherwise, the core of the abstract will ap-
pear disorganized and uneasy to follow or trust.
Consistency of the introduction
Consistency should also be found within the introduction. It
should be checked, first, that this section “tells a story” on how
and why the authors came to the object of their research. Fur-
thermore, its subsections proceed as a kind of funnel from a
wide view of the field or topic to the narrow and exact objec-
tive of the study [9]. There are a few other structural possibili-
ties, but the funnel form is probably the most assuring. It should
be checked, then, that there is a single objective, clearly and
concisely expressed. Announcing more than one objective
will lead the reviewers to check that all have been dealt with
fully and/or equally, which is not always done. Often, when
several objectives are announced, some end by being either
totally forgotten or incompletely treated and discussed. Final-
ly, it should be checked that the objective stated in the intro-
duction corresponds to the objective stated in the abstract.
Consistency between the methods and the results
Two advisable features of a good methods section are grada-
tion and structure [10]. Gradation leads the reader from the
general setting of the study to the most sophisticated statisti-
cal test or model and from the most common to the most
complex physical, chemical, or medical procedure. This puts
the reader in a comfortable environment before taking him or
Checks for scientific article consistency
https://www.escienceediting.org Sci Ed 2023;10(1):105-108 | 107
her to a novel test or procedure that requires more concentra-
tion to understand. The structure should split the methods
section into subsections that relate to the same context, in-
cluding medical processes, imaging, laboratory, or statistics,
or group together each procedure and its related quantitative
analysis. This structure makes it easy to follow what was car-
ried out, when, and why, and prompts the reader to expect the
results within given frames.
Next, logically, a good results section reproduces the same
structure as the methods and displays the outcomes of the
procedures and tests in the same gradation [11–13].
Consistency of the discussion with the other sections
A series of final checks should be carried out in the discussion
section. First, the restatement of the objective should be con-
sistent with the restatement of the main results. Second, the
former restatement should be consistent with the abstract’s
objective, the objective set in the introduction, and the overall
conclusion. Third, the results discussed must be mentioned in
the abstract’s results and dealt with in the results section.
Fourth, the overall conclusion must match the abstract’s con-
clusion. Generally, these critical checks are not always done
simply because tired authors rush to finish or because minor
but numerous amendments are made to the discussion by
several authors soon before submission. However, some re-
viewers and, afterward, readers might start reading the dis-
cussion before the other article’s sections [14–16]. Therefore,
unresolved inconsistencies may shed doubts on the rigor and
reliability of the work.
Consistency with the illustrations
Finally, an easy connection should exist between the result of
a given procedure or test and a table or a figure, as the most
convenient and visually pleasing way to present information
(Fig. 1).
Conclusion
Broadly, in written communication, consistency (“the orderly
treatment of a set of linked elements in a document”) is “a
necessary characteristic of polished, highly readable prose”
[17]. Ensuring it is essential to increase the persuasiveness
and credibility of all actors involved in science production
and diffusion. More narrowly, acting as one’s own first re-
viewer might not be fast or straightforward, but is certainly
inoffensive and always rewarding.
Finally, checking for inconsistencies in a manuscript before
submitting it is like sensing for asperities on a carving before
varnishing it: a final aesthetic touch to technical achievement.
Conflict of Interest
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was re-
ported.
Funding
The author received no financial support for this article.
References
1. Paliszkiewicz J. Writing scientific journal articles: motiva-
tion, barriers, and support. In: Liebowitz J, editor. A guide
to publishing for academics: inside the publish or perish
phenomenon. CRC Press; 2015. p. 169–78.
2. Grogan KE. Writing science: what makes scientific writing
hard and how to make it easier. Bull Ecol Soc Am 2021;
102:e01800. https://doi.org/10.1002/bes2.1800
3. Coleman B. How to write a clinical paper. In: Musahl V,
Karlsson J, Hirschmann MT, et al., editors. Basic methods
handbook for clinical orthopaedic research: a practical
guide and case based research approach. Springer-Verlag;
2019. p. 235–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58254-
1_25
4. Frassl MA, Hamilton DP, Denfeld BA, et al. Ten simple
rules for collaboratively writing a multi-authored paper.
PLoS Comput Biol 2018;14:e1006508. https://doi.org/10.
1371/journal.pcbi.1006508
5. Abramowitz J. Publish without perishing: advice for stu-
dents and new faculty [Internet]. Association for Behav-
ioral and Cognitive Therapies; [cited 2022 Oct 20]. Avail-
able from: https://www.abct.org/about/leadership-and-
governance/presidents-muse
6. Panter M. Crafting an appropriate running title for your
scientific paper [Internet]. American Journal Experts; [cit-
ed 2022 Oct 20]. Available from: https://www.aje.com/arc/
editing-tip-crafting-appropriate-running-title
7. Tullu MS. Writing the title and abstract for a research pa-
per: being concise, precise, and meticulous is the key. Sau-
di J Anaesth 2019;13:S12–7. https://doi.org/10.4103/sja.
SJA_685_18
8. Mensh B, Kording K. Ten simple rules for structuring pa-
pers. PLoS Comput Biol 2017;13:e1005619. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005619
9. Kroemer T. How to write an effective introduction section
of a scientific article [Internet]. Gold Biotechnology; [cited
2022 Oct 20]. Available from: https://goldbio.com/articles/
article/how-to-write-introduction-section
10. Ghasemi A, Bahadoran Z, Zadeh-Vakili A, Montazeri SA,
Hosseinpanah F. The principles of biomedical scientific
Jean Iwaz
https://www.escienceediting.org
108 | Sci Ed 2023;10(1):105-108
writing: materials and methods. Int J Endocrinol Metab
2019;17:e88155. https://doi.org/10.5812/ijem.88155
11. Erdemir F. How to write a materials and methods section
of a scientific article? Turk J Urol 2013;39(Suppl 1):10–5.
https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2013.047
12. Borja A. 11 Steps to structuring s science paper editors will
take seriously [Internet]. Elsevier; 2014 [cited 2022 Oct 20].
Available from: https://www.elsevier.com/connect/11-steps-
to-structuring-a-science-paper-editors-will-take-seriously
13. Kroemer T. Materials and methods: the heart of a scientif-
ic journal article [Internet]. Gold Biotechnology; [cited
2022 Oct 20]. Available from: https://www.goldbio.com/
articles/article/Materials-and-methods-of-a-scientific-ar-
ticle
14. Sweeney ME. How to read for grad school [Internet]. 2012
[cited 2022 Oct 20]. Available from: https://miriamsweeney.
net/2012/06/20/readforgradschool/
15. Stewart C. The three-pass approach [Internet]. Ashland
Community & Technical College; 2022 [cited 2022 Oct 20].
Available from: https://ashland.kctcs.edu/blog/posts/
030422-three-pass.aspx
16. University of California, Davies (UC Davis). How are re-
search reports organized? [Internet]. UC Davis; 2014 [cit-
ed 2022 Oct 20]. Available from: https://canvas.ucdavis.
edu/courses/45147/files/98437
17. Farkas D. The concept of consistency in writing and edit-
ing. J Tech Writ Commun 1985;15:353–64. https://doi.org/
10.2190/T6EM-UTT0-EL6J-59N9
