Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: How to Write a Research Paper

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Rep Power

    Default How to Write a Research Paper

    Andrei V. Alexandrov

    Stroke Treatment Team, Houston Medical School, University of Texas, Houston, Tex., USA

    Background: Busy strokologists often find little time for scientific writing. They sometimes develop a mental condition equivalent to that known by neurologists as writer's cramp. It may result in permanent damage to academic career. This paper provides advice how to prevent or treat this condition. Methods: Prepare your manuscript following the IMRaD principle (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion), with every part supporting the key message. When writing, be concise. Clearly state your methods here, while data belong to Results. Successful submissions combine quality new data or new thinking with lucid presentation. Results: Provide data that answer the research question. Describe here most important numeric data and statistics, keeping in mind that the shorter you can present them, the better. The scientific community screens abstracts to decide which full text papers to read. Make your point with data, not arguments. Conclusions: Conclusions have to be based on the present study findings. The time of lengthy and unfounded speculations is over. A simple message in a clearly written manuscript will get noticed and may advance our understanding of stroke

    By now you probably wrote an abstract and submitted it to a stroke conference. Your mentor reminds you several times to start drafting a paper, and you have no idea where to start. As a simple trick, copy and paste your abstract so that Background becomes your introduction. For the rest, follow the IMRaD principle: Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion [1, 2, 3]. Think what 'take home message' you'd like to deliver and to whom. The title sells the paper.

    'Busy strokologists often find little time ... to treat this condition': this introduction concisely describes the study hypothesis, rationale, purpose, and objectives. A three-paragraph introduction is plenty for most topics. Expand with facts from papers previously published by others, among whom you may occasionally find your mentor. Do a thorough literature search for earlier sources dealing with your subject [4, 5, 6]. Tell here what is known in the field. You do not need to refer to every paper ever written on this topic. Select key references and remember that for publishing purposes, less is better than more. Consult your mentor as often as possible - he is the senior author after all.

    The third paragraph should state the research question [7]. You may take an original paper already published in Cerebrovascular Diseases to use as a template. Formulate the research question clearly since data presentation should provide equally clear answers.

    Subjects and Methods

    The first author drafts the manuscript and determines co-authors [8]. Although general guidelines are available [8], the reality often demands seeking advice from your mentor. Inappropriate inclusion of authors will decrease the likelihood of manuscript acceptance.

    Describe subject selection criteria and data collection tools. Make this description detailed enough so that if someone wants to repeat the study, it will be possible. If new imaging technology was used, tell how and by whom these tests were validated. Avoid presenting actual data in this section: 'Study subjects were recruited from 1,215 patients admitted to our stroke unit from August 1999 through August 2002'. Instead say: 'Study subjects were recruited from consecutive patients admitted to our stroke unit. Inclusion criteria were ...'. Methods may disclose power calculations, estimated sample size, and stopping rules.

    Provide additional evidence that would increase confidence in the reliability of your methods. Control for biases, validation of research tools, 'blinding' of observers - all of these facts, if established before the study initiation, will strengthen the manuscript. Describe in detail the outcome models or dependent variables. For clinical outcomes or surrogate markers, reference a pivotal trial or study that established their relevance.

    Documentation of protection of research subjects is essential. Clearly state if a local ethics committee approved your study. This ensures patients or animal rights protection, particularly if experiments were performed. The author also needs to disclose funding sources and potential for commercial bias such as connections with the pharmaceutical industry. Data safety monitoring, independent data acquisition and analysis during clinical trials and appropriate overseeing committees should be mentioned if applicable.

    Major scientific journals currently accept less than 25% of submitted manuscripts. If rejected, it does not necessarily mean your manuscript is poor. Rejection means that reviewers did not give it a high enough priority. You should not be too disappointed because, after all, you got very good advice how to improve your manuscript. Follow reviewers' suggestions and you increase the likelihood that another esteemed journal will accept it. The most important factors for publication are the quality, novelty, reliability and scientific or clinical importance of your work. A manuscript should disclose new information or a new way of thinking about old information. If not, it will not be published - regardless of how well it is written. Avoid redundant or duplicate publications since these should not be published. Scientific publishing is extremely competitive, and chances are that by the time you conceived the project, 10 other groups were already doing it and 5 others have already published it. Stay on top of current literature and know the limitations of research done by others.

    The last paragraph of this section should describe tools of statistical analysis appropriate to study design. Consult a statistician before embarking on a project, work with a statistician to analyze and interpret the data, and have a statistician reviewing the whole manuscript for clarity of statistical analysis and data presentation.

    Your results are the most important part of the manuscript. Present them clearly by avoiding long and confusing sentences. The shorter you can present your data in tables and figures, the better. Remain focused and disciplined. The flurry of numbers and 'p' values should follow simple logics. Start by describing your study subjects, use actual numbers for study demographics. Avoid opening sentences like: 'Table 1 summarizes our findings in sub-group C'. This makes reviewers frustrated since they have to flip back and forth through pages to understand what was done to study subjects.

    Make data presentation so clear and simple that a tired person riding late on an airplane can take your manuscript and get the message at first reading. Very few people can write a perfect manuscript on the first draft. Return to the draft, read it, change cumbersome parts, read other papers and change the draft again, and again, and again. I still do it before I give the manuscript to my co-authors. But do not hold it for too long. Remember, '10 other groups ...'.

    Present results to colleagues since they would likely ask for more data or analyses. Most likely the reviewers of any esteemed journal would do the same, so include data in the first draft of your manuscript. The internal review is helpful to determine sufficient data to answer the research question.

    Most importantly, provide data relevant to the research question. Observations beyond the primary research question can be included in the manuscript, if they strengthen your case. Remember to stay in focus. If you get lost from the aim of the study, so will be reviewers. Prestigious journals have a strict word limit for papers they accept. You need all this space to deliver the key message, so do not mess around but concentrate on the essential. Packing manuscript with data is better than splitting the paper into separate small ones.

    Mention a statistical test that generated specific 'p' values or coefficients. Show absolute numbers as well as percentages so that reviewers can judge the significance of your observations. Remember that statistical difference does not necessarily translate into clinical significance.

    Make your point with data, not arguments.


    This section should start with: 'Our study showed ...' to lucidly summarize your study findings. Discussion is often the weakest part of the manuscript. Do not repeat the introduction. Do not present any new data that were not shown in the results section and avoid repeating data presentation. There is no reason to underline how terrific your results are - let them speak for themselves.

    The second paragraph may describe the novelty of your findings or if they parallel previous research. Remember, only the beginners try to refer to all published papers in the field. No esteemed journal can afford the space needed for this. A skillful selection of the most pertinent references demonstrates a command of the relevant literature. Confirmatory research makes passing the review process more difficult. Arbitrarily, the ratio of abstracts to original papers in curriculum vitae should be less than 3 to 1. If there are too many abstracts, you either have writer's cramp or the quality of your research is insufficient for publication.

    The third paragraph may describe how your study contradicts previous research or established dogmas. If there was disagreement about study interpretation by co-authors, mention different conclusions drawn from your results or other studies [9, 10]. Avoid general statements that are not founded in data. Do not provide your opinion how to solve a problem that was not directly evaluated in your study. Do not write a review of all possible mechanisms that you have not accounted for in your study. You can write a short but to-the-point Discussion.

    The fourth paragraph should describe study limitations. If you do not discuss study weaknesses, the reviewers will. Study limitations may be contrasted with study strengths. This part may also mention unresolved questions and direction of future research.

    The concluding paragraph can summarize the potential significance of your findings and what changes to research or clinical practice your data may support. This is a critical part since it is easy to overestimate the significance of your research. Avoid broad claims and strong statements. Remember that even pioneer break-through studies require independent confirmation. Publication in a peer-reviewed journal means completion of your project and dissemination of research results [11, 12].

    Clinicians need to develop skills in scientific writing. If you make a significant observation, a proper and fast scientific communication is required [12]. Improving your scientific writing is a life-long process. If and when your papers are rejected, remember that most manuscripts face the same fate. Avoid choosing an inappropriate journal for your manuscript submission. Common reasons for rejection include inappropriate or incomplete statistics; over-interpretation of results; inappropriate or sub-optimal instrumentation; a sample too small or biased; difficult-to-follow writing; insufficient problem statement; inaccuracy or inconsistency of the data reported; incomplete, inaccurate, or outdated review of the literature; insufficient data presented, and defective tables or figures [13, 14, 15]. When reading criticism, learn from your mistakes or the advice given to you. While wrestling with reviewers, you will become a better scientific writer but also a better, more critical scientist. In the long run this will make a major difference to your academic career, and probably will also improve your patient care. Most likely, your way of writing will become more evidence based.

    An anonymous and probably frustrated academician once said: 'Publish or perish!'. This brutally honest statement should motivate you to learn yet another set of useful skills. Good luck!

    The author is not a native English speaker. I am indebted to John Norris, MD, FRCP, for - among many things during fellowship training - his patience with my 'a's and 'the's, and the first lessons in study design, analysis, and presentation. The infamous 'Norris Rules' that he taught his fellows are partly reflected in this paper.


    1Pakes GE: Writing manuscripts describing clinical trials: A guide for pharmacotherapeutic researchers. Ann Pharmacother 2001;35:770-779.

    2Pamir MN: How to write an experimental research paper. Acta Neurochir Suppl 2002;83:109-113.

    3Kern MJ, Bonneau HN: Approach to manuscript preparation and submission: How to get your paper accepted. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2003;58:391-396.

    4Cummins RO: Learning to write: Can books help? J Med Educ 1981;56:128-132.

    5Linney BJ: The three R's of writing: Reading, 'riting,' and risking. Physician Exec 1997;23:59-61.

    6Cupples SA: Publishing the research report. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 1999;13(suppl 1):S123-S130.

    7Wojner AW: Outcomes Management: Applications to Clinical Practice. St Louis, Mosby 2001, pp 69-88.

    8Anonymous: Policy on papers' contributors. Nature 1999;399:393.

    9Horton R: The hidden research paper. JAMA 2002;287:2775-2778.

    10Clarke M, Alderson P, Chalmers I: Discussion sections in reports of controlled trials published in general medical journals. JAMA 2002;287:2799-2801.

    11Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, Lijmer JG, Moher D, Rennie D, De Vet HC; STARD Group: Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD initiative. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:51-55.

    12Pearn J: Publication: An ethical imperative. BMJ 1995;310:1313-1315.

    13Bordage G: Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: The strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports. Acad Med 2001;76:889-896.

    14Samet JM: Dear author - advice from a retiring editor. Am J Epidemiol 1999;150:433-436.

    15 DeBehnke DJ, Kline JA, Shih RD: Research fundamentals: Choosing an appropriate journal, manuscript preparation, and interactions with editors. Research Committee of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine. Acad Emerg Med 2001;8:844-850.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Rep Power


    The article was written by a neurologist...but principles he wrote can be applied to any subject matter...

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Rep Power


    I agree.

    Meanwhile, most common risk factor for writer's cramp is probably a boring topic.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Rep Power


    nice post thanx

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Rep Power


    quite helpful thanx

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Rep Power

    Default Writing up your research

    It's a skill that most of us will need at some point, and it doesn't have to be painful, say Rebecca D Udani and colleagues. They guide us through the process

    "Excellent results, now all you have to do is write it up." Have you ever heard this and broken out in a cold sweat at the thought of the task ahead? Well, don't panic. This article will provide the framework you need for "writing up" and act as an antidote to the feelings of impending doom.

    A research report is the way that information is shared in the medical and scientific community. It is a summary of what you did, how you did it, what you found, and what it meant. Until the work is communicated or made public it's invisible and it's just not science until it can be evaluated and repeated by the rest of the scientific or medical community.

    Why bother?
    As doctors and scientists we don't want to reinvent the wheel. If we are successful or the results are interesting we want to tell everybody, save lives, and reduce suffering. If there is a problem or the results are negative we also want everyone to know because we don't want others to repeat our mistakes, take the wrong road, or even build a square wheel. Where did we go wrong?was it in our hypothesis or our method? If our report is clear and accurate another group can repeat the study and find out.

    Of course that's the bigger scientific and medical picture, but the research report may simply be part of your education, the end point of a research project. You may decide that you want to go on an elective in which you spend most of the time working on a research topic, or you may decide to intercalate a science degree. In either case the research report will play a large part in your final assessment.

    The report allows the examiners to see if you understood the problem, how you analysed the data, your conclusions, and of course your skill in presenting the final report. This article will focus on how to write such a report for a laboratory based project. But the principles are also relevant to reports for other types of projects.

    Later, if you decide to carry out research as part of your clinical practice, these skills become essential for publishing a paper in a scientific journal. When you read papers as part of your everyday work, questions should pop into your mind. Is it a good study? Can I trust the results? How can I use this to improve my clinical practice?

    Throughout our medical and intercalated degrees, we have worked on laboratory based as well as clinically oriented projects, and we wrote them up. We have presented our work internationally and this article sums up our experience. Our senior author Kevin Haylett has also completed a doctoral degree, which is the Mount Everest of writing up research.

    A typical structure
    Although the style of the report will vary from journal to journal or between departments and disciplines, scientific and medical reports tend to have a standard internationally accepted structure that allows researchers to access information efficiently.

    Figure 1 is a diagrammatic representation of the structure your scientific report should take.

    The introduction takes a broad look at the project, setting it against a background of previous research. The scope of the report then narrows through the methods and results sections to focus on the experiment in hand, and finally broadens out in the discussion to again relate the work to the bigger picture.

    The key to the whole is the abstract, which opens the door into the report. Breathe easily; we will look at each individual component of the structure in turn.

    The abstract is a summary of your report and should have the same structure. It should present the aims of the project, describe the experiments, and point out the major findings and conclusions. It should be self explanatory and give the reader an overall idea of the work, without the need to refer to the main report or references.

    All this sounds simple, but fitting it all into a word limit of 200 to 300 words can be quite challenging. At times it's like a cryptic crossword as you try wording and rewording sentences so that they serve more than one purpose. Stay concise and don't let the words become nonsense and disappear with Alice into Wonderland. Paradoxically, although the abstract is the first part of the report it is usually easier to write last.

    Provide a background to the work by giving a clear description of previous work in the field. To do this you must complete a literature review?searching for, finding, and reading relevant papers, which must be referenced in your report (box 1).

    There are many different research methodologies that can be used to address a specific question. Ideally, the report should also explain why the particular study methodology was carried out and whether the study focus was on qualitative or quantitative data. Was a retrospective or prospective study more suitable? Was the study a meta-analysis, ie, an examination of existing research that brings the results together? Was the study more epidemiological, focusing on the distribution of patient data, rather than a simple comparison of two distinct groups?

    Your introduction should explain your hypotheses and how you plan to test them, and it should describe your aims. It should clearly state what you expect to find and the reasoning that led you to the hypotheses that you have made. For a research report, the introduction should be longer than you would see in most scientific papers, but normally no longer than a quarter of the total length of the report.

    Box 1: Extract from an introduction we created
    "Before 1990 no changes of nerve growth factor receptor expression secondary to neuronal injury were found (Kumar et al, 1988, Gauri et al, 1989). This has been blamed on poor sensitivity of the antibodies used. However, since then several studies have shown that injuries to neurones cause increased expression of nerve growth factor receptors (Cowburn et al, 1997, Warwick et al, 1999). However, these studies utilised a small number of samples. We aim to carry out a similar study using a larger number of samples."
    While conducting your research, stick to good practice and keep all the information and results in a notebook or lab book. This way the methods section will be the easiest to write. You simply describe how you went about your research. Give sufficient detail for the reader to be able to understand and repeat your experiments.

    Include details of the materials used together with the manufacturer's name (box 2); this is especially important if your project was laboratory based and needed special chemicals and equipment.

    If a particular procedure used is well known then there is no need to give a complete description; you can reference the paper in which it was first described and mention any modifications you have made. Finally, describe how you analysed your data, including the statistical methods and software package used.

    Use the passive voice
    It is very difficult to use the active voice when documenting methods without using the first person, which would focus the readers' attention on the investigator rather than the work. It is now standard to write all scientific research papers using the third person passive voice. This is especially true when it comes to writing the methods section for research reports and papers. The modern scientific writing style has developed over many years and has come a long way. The scientists of the 17th century often described their work from a very personal viewpoint quite different from the writing style required by modern science (box 2).

    Box 2: Extracts from the methods section of papers
    Excerpt from a 17th century paper on herbal medicine
    "It is of a clensing and cutting faculty without any manifest heat, moderately drying and binding; It openeth and clenseth the Liver, helpeth the Jaundice, and is very beneficial to the Bowels, healing all inward Wounds, Bruises, Hurts, and other distempers. The Decoction of the Herb made with Wine and drunk is good against the stinging and biting of Serpents, and helps them that have foul, troubled, or bloody waters, and makes them piss cleer spedily; It also helpeth the Chollick, clenseth the Breast, and rids away the Cough."

    Excerpt from a modern paper we created

    "Immunocytochemistry was performed to determine the expression of specific proteins by neuronal cells. Primary antibodies (Baron, Preston) were raised against the specific proteins of interest. Once the primary antibody had been added, the cells were left to incubate at 4degreeC overnight."
    This section should make your findings clear. There are many ways to do this and it has become easier with the introduction of spreadsheets. It is important not just to list a lot of numbers. Using a graph to represent your data will improve the reader's understanding.

    There are wild and wonderful graphs you can draw, but be careful, do not throw caution to the wind. The computer can easily misrepresent your data. You need to be clear what type of graph is suitable for your information. For example, to represent the correlation between two variables, a line graph is preferred to a pie chart or a bar chart. See fig 2 for examples of good and bad graphs.

    Fig 2 Examples of graphs. (a) This graph is poor as it does not contain a title; the x and y axes are unlabelled; and the line joining the points tells the reader nothing. Note the y axis starts at 40. This is misleading and it should really start at 0. (b) This graph was created with the same data as (a). The labels give meaning. Both axes start at zero. The regression line or line of best fit gives a better understanding of the trend between the two variables, r = 0.9321. The closer the correlation coefficient (r value) is to 1, the stronger the relation is between the two variables.

    As with all sections, clarity and conciseness is vital. Don't present the same data more than once. Restrict yourself to the data that helps to address your hypotheses. This is important whether the data supports or disproves them. If you have carried out a statistical analysis, you should give the probability (P) value and state it is significant at the level you are testing. Depending on the analysis used, it may also be important to give the confidence intervals of the results, or other statistical parameters such as the odds ratios.

    Where the research is less data driven and more qualitative it is equally important to explain the approach taken to the analysis. However the analysis is carried out, it is vital to follow the author's guidelines. It is not usually necessary in the results to show how the statistics were calculated. This can be left for the appendix if required.

    Provide a caption for each figure making the general meaning clear without reference to the main text, but don't discuss the results. Let the readers decide for themselves what they think of the data. Your chance to say what you think comes next, in the discussion.

    This section is where you interpret your data and discuss how your findings compare with those of previous researchers. From your literature review you should have the key references. Go over these and see if you can determine how your data fits with what they have found. Try to be critical, but do not discredit other people's work because all studies, even the best, can be improved.

    You also need to account for the results, focusing on the mechanisms behind the observations (box 3). Importantly, there are no bad results. Science is not about right or wrong but about the continuing development of knowledge. Discuss whether or not your results support your original hypotheses. Negative findings are just as important to the development of future ideas as the positive ones.

    Discuss how errors may have been introduced into your study and what steps you took to minimise them. Suggest ways to improve future experiments. This shows that you are aware of the experimental limitations in your work and are seeking solutions to overcome them. Furthermore it shows that you appreciate the limitations of your results and the strength of your conclusions. You should also consider what further work would be desirable.

    You must have a conclusion. It can be in the form of a short sentence or two at the end of the discussion or it can follow under its own separate heading. Either way it is important to have one as many readers will read the abstract and then quickly skip to the conclusion to see what it is you are actually getting at.

    Box 3: Extract from the discussion section of a paper we created

    "We found that protein expression increases with neuronal injury (52%, P<0.05). This finding is consistent with other studies (Dhanvant et al, 1994, Asha et al, 1996). This may be due to cytokine release from damaged neurones (Haylett et al, 1999).
    Finishing off
    As with most things, presentation is important. You should aim to keep your report as clear as possible. To make this easier you need to spend some time thinking about the style used (box 4).

    The references are the foundation on which your report is built and should not be collected as an afterthought when you have finished, unless you want the report to topple over. Literature searches and reading of references should always be the starting point of your project. This section must be accurate and include all the sources of information you used.

    There are many styles of referencing, although the two major types are the Harvard method and the Vancouver method. In the Vancouver format, references are numbered consecutively as they appear in the text and are identified in the bibliography by numerals in brackets. In the Harvard system, references are cited in the text by giving the author's name and year of publication in brackets. In the bibliography, the references are listed in alphabetical order by the author.

    Whatever style you decide to use, you must be consistent throughout. If you are writing your report for a medical school or intercalated degree assessment, you will be assessed on the accuracy of your references.

    Technology comes to the rescue. Reference management software packages are a useful way of keeping track of your references. They integrate with your word processor and as you type you can insert the reference. Often these packages automatically create a list of references in the style you want. If a reference is added, deleted, or changed the reference order is magically updated. Reference managing software also allows you to download citations from the internet and save electronic copies of the abstracts. This can save you a lot of time and is well worth using. Don't be fooled, however?you must still carefully check the final generated bibliography for any mistakes that may have occurred.

    All your raw data and statistical calculations can be placed in the appendices. This will allow the examiner or reader to be able to clarify anything they may not fully understand from your results. In addition, if your data collection involved questionnaires you can also keep a copy of the pro forma in the appendix. For laboratory based projects the ingredients of reagents used can be included in this section for completion.

    You may wish to acknowledge people who have helped you. These can range from those who supported you with experimental techniques to those who read or offered advice on your final manuscript. Writing this article required the help of others?if you don't believe us?read our acknowledgments.

    Box 4: Tips on good style

    Clear headings for each section with clear font type and size. Consider using headers to label the different sections
    Start each new section on a new page
    Consider increasing your line spacing to 1.5 or double
    Consider justifying your text alignment
    Use bullet points to convey important information
    Have a contents page and a list of figures page
    A picture conveys a thousand words?use informative diagrams
    Number your pages
    Have a page explaining your abbreviations. Abbreviations should be written in full the first time you use them, with the abbreviations in parentheses. For example, "Congestive cardiac failure (CCF) is the final common pathway." You may now use CCF to refer to congestive cardiac failure in the succeeding sentences
    Use present tense to report well accepted facts
    Use past tense to describe specific results
    Use good quality paper (100 gms)
    Consider how you want your final report to be bound.
    Take your time
    Writing a good research report takes time and effort. By following these guidelines you will be well on the way to success. Don't forget to ask a friend or colleague to read through your report, as they will inevitably spot the minor mistakes and typos that you missed. You don't have to stop here; for further information and advice see box 5 for useful websites, and it may be well worth taking a look at our references.
    Remember, if you become overwhelmed by the task, stop and relax. Take a little time and think about the thoughts we have provided. You should then find yourself on your way again and before you know it you will have finished an excellent report.

    [HIDE]Box 5: Useful websites

    Owl online writing lab?

    Experimental Biosciences?

    StatPac. Elements of a research proposal and report?[/HIDE]
    We thank Janet Warwick and Manisha Mistry for reviewing the final version of the manuscript.

    Provenance and peer review: Non-commissioned, externally peer reviewed.

    Competing interests: None declared.

    1 Culpeper N. The English physitian: or an astrologo-physical discourse of the vulgar herbs of this nation. London: Peter Cole, 1652. [HIDE][/HIDE]

    Rebecca D Udani, foundation year 2 doctor, Royal Preston Hospital, Preston PR2 9HT
    Senthil K Selvanathan, foundation year 2 doctor, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester M13 9WL
    Sundip D Udani, senior house officer, Royal Preston Hospital, Fulwood, Preston PR2 9HT
    Kevin R Haylett, principal clinical scientist, medical engineering, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9WL

    Student BMJ 2007;15:383-426 November ISSN 0966-6494

    Culpeper N. The English physitian: or an astrologo-physical discourse of the vulgar herbs of this nation. London: Peter Cole, 1652. [HIDE][/HIDE].
    Hall GM, ed. How to write a paper. London: BMJ Books, 2004.
    Agha R. Making sense of your medical career. London: Hodder Arnold, 2005.

    This page printed from: [HIDE][/HIDE]
    Last edited by drchinx; 01-19-2008 at 04:38 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Rep Power


    thans very much

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Rep Power


    thanks boss

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Rep Power


    Nice post...thanks for sharing...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. How to Write a Dissertation in Medicine
    By vitrag24 in forum Students' HangOut
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-08-2011, 11:15 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-30-2010, 01:26 AM
  3. How to write a case report
    By drchinx in forum Students' HangOut
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-05-2007, 10:13 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-05-2007, 04:46 PM


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts