How to start to write a scientific paper Remedios Melero Valencia, Spain Managing editor Food Science and Technology International The aims of this presentation are to put forth the main concepts and ideas about the way to prepare a paper, to make the students to think, to awaken their curiosity and to create their own criteria to judge and criticize their own work, and finally to express it.

This work is addressed to graduate or postgraduate students not to editors or any other specialist joined to the publishing world, and emphasizes the importance of the scientific research communication and its transfer to the scientific community. the author

The construction of the science is based on the communication of the research results Research Production Literature your research career. Within the circle it is relevant to communicate your results as brief and clear as possible. Previous works are the basis for yours, when you enter in the loop (intake, production, output and feedback) you become a consumer and a producer and so on till the end of Why is important your scientific contribution?

Question How does the process begin? Preliminary research answer yes no New research Project design Lab work results conclusions manuscript Dissemination & retrieval

Be aware of the contribution of your research to the Scientific Community and try to share it with your colleagues How? Communicating your results (written, oral, others)

When you consider you have finished an homogeneous part, be sure before closing the assays. Arrange and organize your notes, references or any other material, display and classify it.

How to start to write a manuscript?

Organize your information

Structure your information in separate blocks Notes, comentaries, references, objetives Samples, individuals, sampling, analytical and statistical methods,... Answers to the objetives supported by numerical, graphical or any other forms Analysis of the results, comparison with other authors

Try to integrate your puzzle of information And structure it

Structure of a scientific paper Title Authors’ names and affiliation Abstract, keywords Introduction Material and methods Results Discussion Conclusions Acknowledgements References Annexes

TITLE The title should inform accurately about the content of the manuscript without ambiguities. It must be informative, brief, specific, accurate, concise and unambiguous. Why is important the title? Most of information retrieval services, browsers or data bases use titles to elaborate their indexes, so the more accurate and concise the better to its specific dissemination and retrieval.

Authors’ names and affiliations Use always the same name (signature) to avoid any confussion within the scientific community. A “reliable name” is advisable. Identify the author for correspondence (with *). Give the complete name and address of the institutions or centers the authors belong to. Currently s are also given.

Abstract The abstract, summary or synopsis is, like the title, one element within the manuscript of relevant importance. The retrieval of the paper and its reading depend greatly on it. Therefore it should provide the concise information to indicate whether the paper fulfils our expectations.The main feature of an abstract is its size. In very few words ( ) the abstract should inform about the main aspects of the manuscripts and respond to why, what, how and the results and their interpretation.

Characteristics of an abstract Short sentences, but not telegraphed No references, tables or figures No acronyms, abbreviations.. No excessive details

Keywords Keywords have not to be “empty words” or express generalities. Their source could come from: Descriptors from a thesaurus Free text

Introduction Brief Focused With the most relevant references Without repetitions of known stablished assumptions Aims and objetives

Material and methods Samples, sampling Individuals Material (origin if neccesary) Methods (references and brief description) Statistical methods (packages, software..) Equations. Internationally nomenclature accepted

Results Answers to the objectives Expose the experiences logically sequenced Omit superfluous results Do not remove those that invalidate the initial hypothesis Do not repeat any information in tables or figures, and in the text

Discussion What do the results mean? Are my results compared with other previous works? Do not repeat results Conclusions

Acknowledgements Names, institutions, projects, grants, etc...

Citation S. HarvardS. Vancouver (Name and year) (numerical sequence) These results agreed with previous works (Smith, 1996; Brown et al., 1998) These results agreed with previous works 1,

Bibliographic elements: Journal article: Authors. Year. Title. Vol. (issue).pp-pp. Book: Author(s). Year. Title. Edition. City of publication. Publisher. pp.-pp. Chapter of book: Author’s chapter. Year. Chapter title. Editor. Book title. Edition. City of publication. Publisher. Pp.pp. Patent: Author. Year. Patent title. Number of the patent. Congress comunication: Author. Year. Title of the communication. Title of the congress. City. Date

Verb tenses Pasive voice Past Present Do not flaw the text with redundant passive voice, avoid it when neccesary and apply when the subject is unknown and the object relevant Directives, conclussions, generalities, stable conditions Procedures, results, finished statements Active voice

Tables Simple, avoid grids and backgrounds, use only the concise lines to separate the content from the headings. Do no repeat any information in tables and figures or within the text. Use only the essential footnotes. (Express in a tabular way concise results) Do not forget the units of the headings. The table should contain at least 2 x2, rows x columns.

Figures Figure = figure caption+ axes+units+ content Avoid grids, lines, frames, and legends inside the drawing. Figures are preferably to show tendencies more than particular (discrete) data. Avoid figures with only a line. Use common symbols, clear and neat within the traces.

Have you chosen the journal? Have you the instructions to authors? Let’s write the first draft

AVOID Long Redundant Ambiguous Jargonized Obscure MANUSCRIPTS

The simpler The clearer The shorter The more concise The Better The more arresting Manuscripts

Why? How? What did you find? What does it mean? Does your paper answer these questions? introduction material + methods results discussion

Check the accuracy of the data in tables and figures Are all tables and figures neccesary? Could you join figures or tables? Do you repeat any information?

Re-read first draft Revise the style Review the content, data, references 2nd draft Final manuscript