Top 10 Tips for Writing Your Scientific Paper: The Radiology Scientific Style Guide

HomeRadiologyVol. 304, No. 1 Next CommunicationsFree AccessFrom the EditorTop 10 Tips for Writing Your Scientific Paper: The Radiology Scientific Style GuideSarah L. Atzen, David A. BluemkeSarah L. Atzen, David A. BluemkeSarah L. AtzenDavid A. BluemkePublished Online:Apr 5 2022https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.229005MoreSectionsPDF ToolsImage ViewerAdd to favoritesCiteTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked In Radiologists and imaging researchers have extraordinary training and expertise within their specialty. Their ability to critique medical research in the peer review process is remarkable. In our hospital’s weekly clinical conferences, clinicians keep up to date by reviewing key articles in the literature. These experts can tear apart a published research study within minutes, finding each element of weakness. Critical thinking in radiology is alive and well.Yet how good are these same experts when it comes to writing, rather than reviewing, a paper?As writers, we need to admit the obvious: Even though we may be among the most expert reviewers or clinicians, most of us are only average writers. In a recent example, clear mistakes identified by a world-class reviewer in someone else’s work were repeated a week later by that same individual as an author. As research authors, we often make mistakes and errors of logic in our own papers. How and why does this happen?Here, we offer two possible explanations. While neither fully explains the above circumstances, both explanations offer solutions that may help authors to be more successful in publishing their research.No. 1: It is very difficult for an author to critique their own writing. As researchers, we have extraordinary time and effort invested in our own hypotheses. Perhaps because of this, overt errors in logic (eg, lack of control groups, failure to adjust for critical confounders) in our own research somehow become invisible to us. Yet when submitted for publication, those errors are readily identified by peer reviewers. This peculiarity is rampant and often baffling. One possible solution: Solicit a critical review from your colleagues or department leaders prior to journal submission.No. 2: Expert researchers and clinicians are not trained writers. Almost none of us has specialty training in scientific writing. We learn by doing. A senior mentor’s suggestion to a junior author is often to “copy the format of a good article” in the journal. Unfortunately, that approach is usually insufficient. Although there may be multiple senior authors on manuscripts, junior authors are mostly on their own. Professional editors are of great assistance in communicating your research results.For Radiology authors, we now have a Scientific Style Guide (1) to help authors achieve writing competency. The Style Guide is an accumulation of the mistakes and omissions observed over thousands of submissions to this journal. While some parts of the Style Guide focus on our unique RSNA journal format, the majority is based on the AMA Manual of Style (https://www.amamanualofstyle.com) and will apply to any scientific paper. We strongly urge authors to browse the Style Guide for tips to help construct their submission. Some of our top tips in the Scientific Style Guide are reiterated below, as well as in the Table.Top Tips from Radiology for Writing Your Scientific PaperStart with a specific study purpose, stated in the Abstract and again at the end of your introduction. The study purpose should essentially be the same in both locations. Ensure your study purpose is driven by your hypothesis. A study purpose such as “improving patient health” is too general, whereas “studying the association of an imaging test as it relates to patient survival” is specific. Your conclusion must address your study purpose.Materials and Methods, paragraph 1, should include the following items: institutional review board/ethics committee approval; informed consent obtained (specify written or verbal) or waiver granted; Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act approval (the United States only); animal care committee approval (animal studies only); and the registry name and number for registered studies or secondary analyses of studies registered on a national database (https://clinicaltrials.gov/) or an international database (https://www.who.int/clinical-trials-registry-platform).In Methods, describe your study type: prospective study (specify if you are presenting a secondary analysis of a prospective study) or retrospective study. For prospective studies, enrolled patients are termed study participants, not patients. State your study type in the Abstract Methods and in the main body of Methods, paragraph 1.In Methods, describe how patients were selected to be part of your study sample. Indicate the type of institution (multicenter or single-center) and dates of study or participant accrual. Describe your sampling technique: consecutive, random, or convenience sampling. Provide inclusion and exclusion criteria. Use a simple format, such as: “The inclusion criteria were (a), (b), (c)… the exclusion criteria were (d), (e), (f)…” Justification of sample size and/or power calculation is strongly recommended.In Results, for human studies, Radiology requires a patient inclusion and exclusion flow diagram as Figure 1, and a list of demographic and clinical characteristics as Table 1. Figure 1 and a summary of the characteristics of your final study sample should be summarized in paragraph 1 of your Results section.For artificial intelligence, or AI, papers, indicate how the algorithm can be accessed in the Materials and Methods section (2). Provide the unique identifier for the revision of the code used in the publication. Our rationale for this has been previously provided (3).Do not give isolated P values without indicating the values being compared. Physicians do not treat patients based on P values. With big data and large study samples in the hundreds or thousands, almost all comparisons between groups can become “statistically significant” but may have no biological or medical relevance. Report P values with corresponding comparison values (eg, group A, 25 ± 4; group B, 50 ± 5, P = .01).Methods and Results for reader studies need to include a section on reader reproducibility. Three readers are generally the minimum; consensus reads are discouraged.Percentages by themselves have little meaning—10% could be either one of 10 patients, or 100 of 1000 patients. Include the numerators and denominators for your main results along with percentages. Remember to add the units of measure. Include confidence intervals if percentages (proportions) are your main results (4).Ensure your biostatistician is a co-author (often the second author in a statistics-heavy manuscript). For Radiology, we have 22 biostatisticians standing by to oversee your results. Sliding your results through the review process without consulting your biostatistician is unlikely. Our most frequent authorship change request at Radiology is to add a biostatistician as co-author.This is a small selection of tips for publishing your research study in Radiology. Find more advice regarding scientific style on our website at https://pubs.rsna.org/page/radiology/author-instructions/scientificediting. For new authors, the Scientific Style Guide might be a helpful starting point in getting your first paper published in Radiology. For established authors, we hope the guide might facilitate your publication strategy and provide a resource for your mentees starting their academic careers.References1. Scientific Style Guide: Writing a Manuscript for Radiology . Radiological Society of North America Web site . https://pubs.rsna.org/page/radiology/author-instructions/scientificediting. Accessed March 2, 2022 . Google Scholar2. Editorial Policies and Processes: Algorithm and Code Transparency . Radiological Society of North America Web site . https://pubs.rsna.org/page/policies#algorithm. Accessed March 2, 2022 . Google Scholar3. Bluemke DA , Moy L , Bredella MA , Ertl-Wagner BB , Fowler KJ , Goh VJ , Halpern EF , Hess CP , Schiebler ML , Weiss CR . Assessing Radiology Research on Artificial Intelligence: A Brief Guide for Authors, Reviewers, and Readers—From the Radiology Editorial Board . Radiology 2020 ; 294 : 3 , 487 – 489 . doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019192515 Link, Google Scholar4. Kohn MA , Senyak J . Sample Size Calculators [website]: Confidence Interval for a proportion . UCSF CTSI . https://sample-size.net/confidence-interval-proportion/. Published December 20, 2021. Updated December 20, 2021. Accessed March 2, 2022 . Google ScholarArticle HistoryPublished online: Apr 05 2022Published in print: July 2022 FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited ByIntroduction to Research for International Young Academics: A Life-changing Experience Beyond All ExpectationsAlessia Guarnera, 6 June 2023 | Radiology, Vol. 307, No. 5Looking Back at 2022 and ahead to 2023 for the Korean Journal of RadiologySeong HoPark2023 | Korean Journal of Radiology, Vol. 24, No. 1How to Write the Perfect Abstract for RadiologySarah L. Atzen, David A. Bluemke, 9 August 2022 | Radiology, Vol. 305, No. 3Accompanying This ArticleTop 10 Tips for Writing Your Scientific PaperJul 5 2022Default Digital Object SeriesTweetorial: Top 10 Tips for Writing Your Scientific Paper: The Radiology Scientific Style GuideApr 24 2023Default Digital Object SeriesRecommended Articles Running a Radiology Residency Program: Strategies for SuccessRadioGraphics2018Volume: 38Issue: 6pp. 1729-1743Financial Forecasting and Stochastic Modeling: Predicting the Impact of Business DecisionsRadiology2017Volume: 283Issue: 2pp. 342-358Endometrial Carcinoma: MR Imaging–based Texture Model for Preoperative Risk Stratification—A Preliminary AnalysisRadiology2017Volume: 284Issue: 3pp. 748-757Attention-based Saliency Maps Improve Interpretability of Pneumothorax ClassificationRadiology: Artificial Intelligence2022Volume: 5Issue: 2Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM): A Guide for Authors and ReviewersRadiology: Artificial Intelligence2020Volume: 2Issue: 2See More RSNA Education Exhibits Optimizing The Radiologist Work Environment: Actionable Tips To Improve Workplace Satisfaction, Efficiency, And Minimize Burnout!Digital Posters2020How To Do It: A Practical Guide to Radiomics in OncologyDigital Posters2020Optimising Human Factors to Promote the Learning in RadiologyDigital Posters2022 RSNA Case Collection Peroneus Brevis Split TearRSNA Case Collection2021Bucket handle tearRSNA Case Collection2020Calcific Ischiogluteal BursitisRSNA Case Collection2021 Vol. 304, No. 1 Podcast TweetorialMetrics Altmetric Score PDF download