publishing scientific research papers

News alert: UC Berkeley has announced its next university librarian

Secondary menu

• Log in to your Library account
• Hours and Maps
• Connect from Off Campus
• UC Berkeley Home

Search form

How to publish a scientific paper: writing the paper.

• Writing the paper
• Submitting the manuscript
• Editorial process
• Maximizing impact

Image (detail): Subhashish Panigrahi, Wikimedia Commons , CC-BY-SA 4.0

Writing a scientific paper

Before you begin.

• Review the literature: Ensure that the research question has not been investigated before and that the experimental methods are appropriate. Librarians can help!
• Research data management (UC Berkeley): Ensure that your data meet disciplinary guidelines, and that you will be able to comply with funder and journal policies for data deposit and sharing.

Quick writing guides

• 11 steps to structuring a science paper editors will take seriously (Borja 2014, updated 2021)
• The Science of Science Writing (Gopen and Swan 1990)
• Short Guide to Scientific Writing (Sawyer n.d.)
• Ten simple principles for structuring papers (Mensh and Kording 2017)
• Writing workshop program PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 2015; includes general as well as journal-specific guidelines. General guidelines begin at slide 13.

Image (detail): istock/Thomas Shanahan ( Elsevier Connect )

In-depth writing guides and resources

• Nature Masterclass on Scientific Writing and Publishing Requires creating free Nature account, accessing from Berkeley IP address or using the Berkeley VPN with Library Access - Full Tunnel gateway, and enabling popups.
• How to Write a Good Scientific Paper (Mack 2018)
• Writing science: how to write papers that get cited and proposals that get funded (Schimel 2012)
• Graduate Writing Center (UC Berkeley)

Image (detail): Nature Masterclasses

Reporting guidelines

• Digital Curation Centre (DCC): https://www.dcc.ac.uk/guidance/standards/metadata
• Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR): https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/ for human- and animal-subjects research
• FAIRsharing: https://fairsharing.org/standards/

Writing tools

• Manage your citations : Citation managers EndNote, Mendeley, RefWorks, and Zotero (UC Berkeley Library guide)

• Writing + Citing in the Sciences : LaTeX editor Overleaf and citation managers (UC Berkeley Library guide)

• LaTeX in Engineering & Physical Sciences : The document formatting markup language LaTeX, which is especially useful for rendering mathematical and chemical symbols and equations (UC Berkeley Library guide)
• Virtual Online Library Tutorials (VOLT): LaTeX : Self-paced exercises for learning LaTeX

For more help

Writing tips & tools

Writing tips.

Avoid fragmentation (breaking a single study into multiple short papers) and redundant publication (submitting multiple papers that are very similar).

When writing a scientific paper, think about the structure familiar to you from reading scientific papers. A common structure for scientific research articles is termed IMRAD: Introduction, Methods, Results, And Discussion. A fuller outline is provided below:

• Title: most important element; include standard, searchable terms (keywords) to call attention to your work. Articles with short titles describing the results are cited more often (Paiva et al. 2012); cited 200 times (Google Scholar)  
•  What is the problem domain (system under investigation)?
•  What is the specific research question ? 
•  What were the methods and results ? 
•  What are the conclusions ?
• Introduction: describes the general problem domain (system under investigation) and then focuses on the specific research question addressed and/or the hypothesis tested by this paper.  
• Methods and materials: provides enough detail to enable experiment to be reproduced by another researcher in your field. Standard experimental methods can be indicated by a reference to a published protocol. Some journals have adopted STAR Methods (Structured, Transparent, Accessible Reporting), which includes a Key Resources Table listing all reagents, antibodies, cell lines, software, or other resources required for the experiment. Use of identifiers such as Research Resource Identifiers (RRIDs) is strongly encouraged. Protocols can be shared publicly or privately on protocols.io . If they are original they can be published in a protocol journal such as bio-protocol , STAR protocols , or JoVE .  
• Figures: clear and compelling; each figure should tell a single story: Data Visualization Guide (UC Berkeley Library)  
• Discussion: explains meaning and significance of results (how do they advance the field?) and how they relate to the research question; describes limitations and further work suggested by study.  
• Data availability statement: Some publishers require a statement describing how the data can be accessed and reused, or the data protection concerns (such as privacy or commercial sensitivity) that prevent sharing.  
• Acknowledgements: Unless there are separate sections for this information, name funding sources , declare any potential competing interests , and thank contributors who are not co-authors. For human- and animal-subject research, an ethics statement may be required identifying the review committee that approved the study and the relevant guidelines and regulations that governed the research.  
• References : A list of sources cited in your paper. Citations (both in-text and in the reference list) must be accurate and formatted in the journal's required style. Use a citation manager .  
• Supplementary information : supporting technical information (figures, protocols, methods, tables, additional data) too long or detailed to fit into the body of the paper.

General tips:

• first focus on the results (including figures and tables ), discussion and methods (communicating the experimental outcomes, significance and procedures)
• then work on the introduction , abstract and title (increasingly concise summaries of the work).
• Use simple, concrete, active language ("We determined..." not "It was determined that...")
• Start paragraphs with a topic sentence
• Consider your audience: narrowly specialized or interdisciplinary ?
• Be as clear and concise as possible
• Next: Submitting the manuscript >>
• Last Updated: Jan 30, 2024 2:39 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/publish

Writing and publishing a scientific paper

• Lecture Text
• Open access
• Published: 11 January 2022
• Volume 8 , article number  8 , ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Fritz Scholz   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6287-1184 1  

25k Accesses

7 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This text is designed to give the reader a helping hand in writing a scientific paper. It provides generic advice on ways that a scientific paper can be improved. The focus is on the following ethical and non-technical issues: (1) when to start writing, and in what language; (2) how to choose a good title; (3) what should be included in the various sections (abstract, introduction, experimental, results, discussion, conclusions, and supporting information (supplementary material); (4) who should be considered as a co-author, and who should be acknowledged for help; (5) which journal should be chosen; and (6) how to respond to reviewers’ comments. Purely technical issues, such as grammar, artwork, reference styles, etc., are not considered.

Graphical abstract

Similar content being viewed by others

How to Write and Publish a Research Paper for a Peer-Reviewed Journal

The Point Is…to Publish?

Preparing the Manuscript

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

“Work, finish, publish” (Michael Faraday) [ 1 ]. Footnote 1

Introduction

The task of writing a scientific paper usually befalls young researchers quite early in their bachelor, masters or PhD degree programs. In most cases, the candidates know very little about the publishing process, which involves a complex combination of historical traditions and modern innovations. Guidebooks are of course available, but these tend to focus on purely technical issues, and miss the interpersonal nuances that are so daunting for the beginner. In any case, the technical issues are normally not the main problem for computer-literate students, so I avoid them in this document. Instead I present my personal views on the overall process, and leave it to the reader to evaluate them.

Long experience has taught me that there are many ways of writing a successful paper, but nevertheless some general principles can be identified. In what follows, all my suggestions are informed by my experience as the editor-in-chief of two international journals, the Journal of Solid State Electrochemistry for 25 years, and ChemTexts—The Textbook Journal of Chemistry for 7 years. I have also been the editor of the series Monographs in Electrochemistry , as well as various reference books and textbooks.

Looking back at history, the communication of scientific results in specialist journals is a rather recent development: its origins date back to the second half of the seventeenth century. In 1665, the Journal des sçavans started in France, while the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society began in Great Britain. Before that time, it was common to publish new findings in books. However, the increasing pace of scientific developments, as well as the increasing number of people who were devoting their lives to science, required a more efficient and faster form of communication. For this to be achieved, journals proved to be very successful. The history of scientific journals cannot be traced here, but I recommend the book The Scientific Journal by Alex Csiszar [ 2 ].

Scientific communication requires a common language that is shared by the author and the reader. Michael D. Gordin has described in his book Scientific Babel [ 3 ] how, over the last few centuries, scientific communication has gradually shifted from Latin to English. The author also pays detailed attention to the French, German and Russian languages, which played important roles in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. These languages retain their importance for scientists, because they contain the foundational texts of many important branches of science.

When to start writing a manuscript

It is trivial to say that one should write a manuscript only when one has new results to communicate. But new results do not appear suddenly and without ambiguity. Rather, they tend to accumulate gradually over time, and require repeated contextualisation to be fully appreciated. This begs the question, at what point should one publish?

Answering this question is difficult. Students certainly need to discuss the matter with their supervisors, who have the necessary experience and far-sightedness. Beginners often wildly underrate or overrate their data. Realistically, however, all scientific publication is a compromise between “publishing too late” and “publishing too early”.

“Publishing too late” (or never) is a well-known fault of some overcautious individuals, who withhold their data from public scrutiny because they are not satisfied with its accuracy and completeness. Although this demonstrates their high ethical standards as regards their personal participation in the scientific process, it also reveals an indifference to the social value of their data and the financial costs to others of having to reproduce their results. In the final analysis, tax-payers’ money that is spent on unpublished work is wasted money, and this raises questions of probity. (In the case of industrial research, contractual confidentiality may also restrict publication, but that is a problem I cannot discuss here.)

“Publishing too early” is a fault of some reckless individuals who have scant regard for the integrity of the scientific process. The institutional pressure to publish papers and the competition for scarce funds are the main causes of this. Nowadays, pollution of the scientific literature by worthless, irreproducible or sloppy work is an increasing and serious problem. Here I can only plead with colleagues of all ages: please do not be tempted by the short-term advantages of overpublication. The benefits are illusory, and the damage is untold. With the advent of mass data storage, published papers are effectively immortal, and sooner or later bad work (and its creators) will be found out.

Of course, “publishing too early” is most tempting for the beginner, and the problem becomes critical when the supervisor is also overambitious. If the supervisor pressurizes the student to publish uncooked results, then the student has a big problem! Now, many universities have introduced ‘thesis committees’ consisting of the primary supervisor plus two or three additional members. These committees can provide valuable advice with respect to timeliness of publishing and they may also mitigate conflicts between the student and their main supervisor, if they happen to occur.

Personally, I have been an ombudsman at my university, and I am pleased to say that such conflicts can be resolved amicably by careful and trustful discussions between all parties. But I fear that global science has a problem with this issue.

The whole question of when to start writing cannot be answered by a simple prescription, and depends to a large extent on the personalities of the individuals concerned. My personal advice is to start writing as soon as the main results become discernible. Writing down the first tranche of clear and reliable results is a useful discipline which indicates what has been achieved and what experiments remain to be done. If you delay writing until you think that all the required experiments have been completed, then you will be sadly disappointed. You will discover that much has been omitted, and then you will have to start again with certain crucial experiments. It goes without saying that co-authors should be involved very early in the writing.

In what language should the paper be written?

What language to use is rather obvious. If you want to be understood worldwide, then you must publish in English. In 2021, there were around 1.35 billion people, scattered over many countries, who spoke English as a first or second language. If you are not a native English speaker, then I strongly recommend that you start to write in English. Do not write in your native language with the vague notion of translating it later into English. This is always bad policy, because you will certainly find it more difficult to translate your text into English than to compose it from scratch. Assuredly, this demands a reasonable command of English. But there are practical steps that you can take to help you along the way.

To achieve a sufficient command of English, you should read as many well-written(!) scientific papers in English as possible. For technical English, try to focus on papers written by native English speakers. However, do not limit yourself to scientific papers, but also read English stories and novels, or any other writings, that can expand your knowledge of English. You should also try to distinguish the different styles (scientific, colloquial, etc.) and avoid mixing them in your own writing.

At this point I suggest the book The Chemist’s English [ 4 ] written by Robert Schoenfeld, and his paper “Say it in English, please” [ 5 ]. Schoenfeld was editor-in-chief of the Australian Journal of Chemistry . One trick that I have found very effective for improving my written English is to translate the draft manuscript back into my native language (in my case German). For many years I did this for publications in Angewandte Chemie , a journal that is published both in English and German, and these back translations frequently revealed the weaknesses in my English.

Concerning written text, I have some further advice which is not specific to the English language: first of all, write clearly and understandably! The eminent physicist Carl Wagner (1901–1976) famously wrote “Any fool can think and write something complicated” (“Jeder Dumme kann etwas Kompliziertes denken und schreiben”) [ 6 ]. Always remember these wise words! Whenever you write a very complicated phrase, ask yourself, do you really understand what you have written? Very often, complicated constructions are the result of an insufficient understanding, or represent an attempt at “hedging” i.e. attempting to disguise the omission of certain facts which might otherwise conflict with the overall claims being made.

In the same book, Wagner also wrote “It is a very special art to speak understandably about subjects when they are not yet completely known”. With regard to clear and understandable language, I should also like to give a serious warning regarding the misuse of certain words and phrases that express uncertainty: “possibly”, “probably”, “may be an indication of”, “seems to be”, “cannot be excluded”, “it is reasonable to assume”, etc. It is possible that these constructions may be justified in certain circumstances, but more often than not they hide a lack of understanding, and trigger alarm bells in the minds of readers. Whenever you write these phrases, ask yourself, are they necessary, are they well-reasoned? I have seen manuscripts full of such vague phrases, and it was clear that they were more or less worthless!

For the language of a paper to be intelligible, it is also necessary that a well-defined terminology is used. The terms have to be internationally accepted (e.g. by IUPAC) and have to be used consistently. It is not good to operate with several synonyms, but one and the same should be used throughout.

The structure of a scientific paper

Usually, scientific papers are structured in the following subsections: (1) title, (2) name of authors and their affiliation(s), (3) keywords, (4) graphical abstract, (5) abstract, (6) introduction, (7) experimental part, (8) results and discussion, (9) conclusions, (10) acknowledgements, (11) references, (12) list of figure captions, (13) figures. Most journals offer publication of ‘supporting information’ (or ‘supplementary material’): these supplements are not part of the main paper, but usually constitute a depository for data, figures, tables, mathematical derivations, etc. which the reader may like to consult for a deeper understanding, which, however, are not vital for a general understanding of the paper. I always prefer to put as much as possible into the main paper, and restrict supplementary information to items which are really of less significance. Many journals provide templates, which you should use. In these templates, the order of items may differ from that given above. You should always adhere strictly to the guidelines of the journal. Some details relating to the subsections of a paper are described below.

The title is the entrance door to your paper. Reading the title, many people make the decision whether to enter the document or walk away. According to Thomson’s Web of Science , about 27% of natural science papers are uncited after 5 years, most likely because they are unread, or undiscovered by search engines. To attract interest, the title of a paper needs to be as short as possible, but as long as necessary. It should also contain some searchable terms for easy computer recognition. Certainly, the title also needs to indicate the very essence of the paper. Prior to the advent of computers, it was customary to use titles like “Studies in phosphorus chemistry. Part XII.”! What on earth does that tell you? Nothing about the specific contents, that’s for sure. Luckily, the time of such absurdities is over.

Phrasing the title of a scientific paper is hard work, and usually the final choice will emerge only after long consideration. It is my personal view that authors should think about the title at the very beginning of writing a manuscript. Since the title reveals the essence, a well-chosen title can set the tone for the entire manuscript. And it goes without saying that the title can still be modified many times as the manuscript mutates into its final form.

The keywords

Most journals request a list of keywords. These are important for the classification of the paper in information systems. Think about the terms that best characterise the content of your paper. However, try to avoid newly created terms or abbreviations. Although an overlap between title terms and keywords is unavoidable, the latter should provide additional information.

The abstract

Following the title, the abstract is the most important device for attracting the attention of readers. Personally, I have always advocated writing the first draft of the abstract before writing the remainder of the text. This forces the author to identify the principal achievements at an early stage. Like the title, the abstract needs to be as short as possible and as long as necessary. Its function is to summarize all the main results. I know that many experienced colleagues disagree with my suggestion of writing the first draft of the abstract before writing the main body of the text. However, my suggestion is not meant to be an apodictic rule. You must find out what best suits you.

Drafting the title and abstract at an early stage presupposes that you already have a clear picture of your achievement. If you do not have that clear picture, then a good suggestion is to arrange all your diagrams and tables in a logical sequence, and then write the text around that.

The abstract needs to contain as much quantitative information as possible. If you have new and significant data, give them in the abstract!

The introduction

The introduction should state the motivation and the aim of the presented research and refer to all relevant literature. If the paper is intended for a specialised journal, avoid rehashing simple textbook knowledge, as you can assume that expert readers will already be acquainted with it. In more general journals, some wider introductory remarks may be necessary.

When you discuss earlier works in your field, do not focus purely on their shortcomings. Make sure that you acknowledge their achievements. Be fair in your presentation. Cite all relevant papers, at least the most important ones. Do not overcite your own papers.

At the end of the introduction, state what you have achieved and what you will present in the paper. Do not repeat the abstract. This is important for the entire paper: avoid repetitions!

The experimental part

This part should contain sufficient experimental details (chemicals, instruments, methods, etc.) for your work to be reproduced in another laboratory. If certain procedures or techniques have previously been published by you, or others, you may refer to those papers without repeating the details. However, the reference has to be accessible. I have seen papers in which the author wrote “the technique is described in Ref. X”. When reading Ref. X, I found the remark “the technique is described in Ref. Y”, and so forth until I gave up searching! This is unacceptable.

The results and discussions

In the past, many journals have demanded that the results and discussion be reported separately. Some journals still demand this. Especially in the case of highly multidisciplinary work it is necessary to present first the results of the different disciplines, followed by a joint discussion referring to all the disciplines. However, if possible, I advocate providing the results and discussion simultaneously, since the combined text is easier to understand.

The most important point in writing the results and discussion section is logical consistency . The most frequently seen weakness appears when authors forego logical consistency and instead provide a chronological history of their experiments. This is often copied from laboratory notebooks. One then finds phrases like “first we thought that x may be the reason for y, and we performed the following experiments… then it turned out that y has nothing to do with x, and we supposed that z might cause the observed effect. Then we did this, and later we did that, and in the end…”. Such historical summaries are extremely tedious for the reader, and may even be misleading.

In results and discussion , it is essential to illustrate the results with clear reference to figures and tables, and to arrange the results within a logical framework. Figures, having captions, and tables, having headings, should be understandable without reading the detailed text.

The conclusions

The most frequent fault is the copying of an abstract, or the minor modification of an abstract, without any reference to the context of the results. The abstract does not require justification of the work: the conclusions certainly do. The conclusions have to provide new insight into a field of research, and this must be explained. The best writers will also indulge in some speculations about future work. These should open the readers’ eyes to novel and unexpected applications of the findings.

When you have finished writing a manuscript, leave it for some time untouched, and then read it again after some days or weeks. You will discover that a fresh reading reveals flaws, repetitions, typos, etc., which you missed the first time around. You should also use that time to circulate the document among trusted friends and colleagues who may act as internal reviewers before external submission. You will be surprised what typos your friends find! The blindness of authors to their own typos is legendary. The modern spellcheckers of computer systems do not prevent all typos, but they are helpful. (They may even introduce further errors, if you are not attentive).

Who should be co-authors and who should be acknowledged for help?

The ethical guidelines of most scientific funding organisations (e.g. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)/German Research Council [ 7 ]) demand that everybody who has a distinct share, be it intellectual or experimental, in a paper has to be listed as a co-author. Any “honorary” co-authorship is not allowed! This is a clear statement, but a lot of questions may arise in specific cases. Since I cannot say it in a better way, I cite here from the DFG guidelines:

Guideline 14: Authorship An author is an individual who has made a genuine, identifiable contribution to the content of a research publication of text, data or software. All authors agree on the final version of the work to be published. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, they share responsibility for the publication. Authors seek to ensure that, as far as possible, their contributions are identified by publishers or infrastructure providers such that they can be correctly cited by users. Explanations: The contribution must add to the research content of the publication. What constitutes a genuine and identifiable contribution must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and depends on the subject area in question. An identifiable, genuine contribution is deemed to exist particularly in instances in which a researcher—in a research-relevant way—takes part in the development and conceptual design of the research project, or the gathering, collection, acquisition or provision of data, software or sources, or the analysis/evaluation or interpretation of data, sources and conclusions drawn from them, or the drafting of the manuscript. If a contribution is not sufficient to justify authorship, the individual’s support may be properly acknowledged in footnotes, a foreword or an acknowledgement. Honorary authorship where no such contribution was made is not permissible. A leadership or supervisory function does not itself constitute co-authorship.

At some educational institutions, the rules for submitting a PhD thesis demand a certain number of submitted or published papers. Unfortunately, this occasionally leads to a sharing of authorship among two or more candidates, so that each of them reaches the desired number, although neither of them has a proper share in all the papers. This is unethical and is strongly condemned.

A very crucial point is that all co-authors must give their clear consent to the submission of the manuscript. Nowadays, most journals send emails to the co-authors informing them about the submission. However, this does not liberate principal authors from the moral imperative of sending their co-authors copies of the manuscript in advance of publication and asking for their consent! Similar advice applies to acknowledgements. Who would be happy about an acknowledgement in a paper that they disagree with?

Which journal should be chosen?

The manuscript should be submitted to a journal which is devoted to the branch of science concerned. Usually there are several journals available so authors need rational criteria for making a choice. Experienced authors typically decide on the basis of publishers’ reputations (journal citation metrics) or personal connections (networks of esteem). Nowadays, scientific information systems even make it possible to unearth obscure papers published in “wrong” journals, on the basis of the title, keywords and abstract. However, indifference to journal choice is not recommended as a career strategy!

Citation metrics have a history of about 200 years [ 8 ]. However the modern infatuation with citation metrics has been driven by their uncritical adoption by research organisations and promotion committees in making decisions about funding and promotion.

In 2012, the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA; https://sfdora.org ) criticized the use of “impact factors” for evaluating the merits of scientists. Since then, the criticism has intensified (see, e.g., [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 ]). Authors are now in a serious conflict situation: should they follow the metrics, or should they choose a journal according to other quality measures? This question is difficult to answer.

What are other quality measures? In my view, one of the most important is the quality of its reviewers and their reports. Those reports are the best which are competent, fair and helpful. Journals which provide such reports should certainly be considered. But these high-quality journals can only be identified by long experience.

Ultimately, neither the Impact Factor nor the CiteScore of a journal is an unambiguous measure of the quality of a single paper. So students should not feel upset when their papers appear in low index journals, nor should they feel triumphant when their papers appear in high index journals.

In all cases authors should beware of publishing in predatory journals ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_publishing ). Open access predatory journals publish manuscripts without serious review. They publish only for money.

Now, a final word about “open access” publishing: this is certainly the best way to disseminate scientific information; however, only if the journals operate a strict peer review. Some scientific publishers (e.g. Springer Nature, https://www.springernature.com/gp/open-research/institutional-agreements ) also have international agreements with universities and institutions to pay the costs of publishing.

How to respond to reviews of submitted manuscripts

It is very interesting to learn how the “peer review system” emerged and I suggest that students read about it in a paper by Csiszar in Nature [ 14 ]. Nowadays, when a manuscript is submitted to a reputable journal, it will first be read by members of the editorial board, who decide whether it should be sent out to referees (reviewers) or sent back to the authors. If serious deficiencies are identified then it is senseless to bother reviewers.

When you receive the reviews of your manuscript, normally at least two or three, you need to know what to do with them. In any event, you should be self-critical: if you get the report “publish as is” or a similar positive evaluation, do not image that your manuscript is perfect. Possibly the reviewer was not competent or was very sloppy in assessing your manuscript. Believe the positive evaluations only when you get two or three of them!

The other extreme may be a report saying “this is a very weak manuscript that should not be published”, without giving specific criticism. Such a report is not helpful and the editor must take the blame for accepting it and passing it to the author. Harsh criticisms require detailed justification, just as extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Fortunately, most reviewers take their job very seriously and deliver clear and detailed reports. You, the author, should always presume that the reviewers are trying to help you to improve your manuscript. They are not your enemy, but on your side, and they are fair. If you do identify clear signs of unfairness, then you should turn to the editor and ask for further reports. It often happens that the first reaction of an author is “oh, this reviewer has completely misunderstood me” and then starts to write a long rebuttal to the editor, explaining all the misunderstandings! However, since reviewers are experts in their field, the author should realize that a likelier explanation of a poor review is the poor quality of the manuscript!

Of course, it really may be true that a reviewer has misunderstood a manuscript. However, in most cases, it is my experience as an editor that the misunderstandings result from deficiencies of the manuscript, such as confusing phrases. Therefore, it is my advice to ask yourself how this misunderstanding could have happened. Do not blame the reviewer; think about your own text!

When you prepare the revised manuscript, follow carefully the advice of the reviewers. In the revised manuscript, you should highlight all the revised parts, which makes it easy for the editor and reviewers to see how you have responded. Your revised manuscript also needs to be accompanied by a detailed document (rebuttal) in which you list the changes and give your explanations for the revisions. Certainly, you are not obliged to do everything as requested by the reviewers. If you have good arguments against the reviewer’s proposals, bring them forward, and it will be up to the editor and reviewers to accept or to reject them.

It goes without saying that it is unacceptable to submit a rejected manuscript to another journal (sometimes even the same journal) without any revisions. This is profoundly disrespectful. When a manuscript has been rejected by a journal, you are of course free to submit it elsewhere, but you need to pay attention to the previous reviews.

Conclusions

Writing a scientific paper is an art as well as a science. With all its dry scientific data and equations, it must nevertheless provide an exciting and fascinating story, in which the leitmotif is present in all parts. It should never be boring.

Publishing scientific results is a very serious task and authors must adhere to the highest ethical standards. It is neither a game nor a routine. Always remember that a published paper will remain forever attached to your name. Do not try to split your work into several pieces to increase the number of your publications. The scientific community is already overwhelmed by a flood of second-rate “minimalist” papers. Reviewers are also inundated with reviewing requests. One solid and comprehensive paper is worth much more than five short papers with tedious repetitions.

It is on record that when a young aspirant asked Faraday the secret of his success as a scientific investigator, he replied: “The secret is comprised in three words—work, finish, publish.”

Gladstone JH (1874) Michael Faraday. Macmillan, London, p 122

Csiszar A (2018) The scientific journal. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Book   Google Scholar  

Gordin MD (2015) Scientific babel. The language of science from the fall of Latin to the rise of English. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Google Scholar  

Schoenfeld R (1985) The chemist’s English. VCH, Weinheim

Schoenfeld R (1988) Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 27:1050–1057

Article   Google Scholar  

Wagner C (1974) Methoden der naturwissenschaftlichen Forschung. Wissenschaftsverlag Bibliographisches Institut, Mannheim

Guidelines for safeguarding good research practice. Code of Conduct (September 2018) ISBN 978-3-96827-001-2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, German Research Foundation, Bonn, Germany

Csiszar A (2017) Nature 551:163–165

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Molinié A, Bodenhausen G (2010) Chimia 64:78–89. https://doi.org/10.2533/chimia.2010.78

Ernst RR (2010) Chimia 64:90. https://doi.org/10.2533/chimia.2010.90

Finch A (2010) BioEssays 32:744–747

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Curry S (2018) Nature 554:147

Waltman L, Traag VA (2021) F1000Research 9:366. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.23418.2

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Csiszar A (2016) Nature 532:306–308

Download references

Acknowledgements

The following colleagues have provided very valuable suggestions: Antonio Doménech-Carbó (Valencia), György Inzelt (Budapest), Sigurd Lenzen (Hannover), Michael Hermes (Berlin), Heike Kahlert (Greifswald), Uwe Schröder (Greifswald) and my wife Gudrun Scholz. I am grateful for general advice from Stephen Fletcher (Loughborough), and especially thankful to him for his elegant language editing. Wilhelmine Klamt (Greifswald) is acknowledged for having drawn the graphic abstract.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Universität Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany

Fritz Scholz

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fritz Scholz .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Scholz, F. Writing and publishing a scientific paper. ChemTexts 8 , 8 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40828-022-00160-7

Download citation

Received : 17 November 2021

Accepted : 03 January 2022

Published : 11 January 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40828-022-00160-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Peer review
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• 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
• 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 and Publish Your Research in a Journal

Last Updated: February 26, 2024 Fact Checked

Choosing a Journal

Writing the research paper, editing & revising your paper, submitting your paper, navigating the peer review process, research paper help.

This article was co-authored by Matthew Snipp, PhD and by wikiHow staff writer, Cheyenne Main . C. Matthew Snipp is the Burnet C. and Mildred Finley Wohlford Professor of Humanities and Sciences in the Department of Sociology at Stanford University. He is also the Director for the Institute for Research in the Social Science’s Secure Data Center. He has been a Research Fellow at the U.S. Bureau of the Census and a Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. He has published 3 books and over 70 articles and book chapters on demography, economic development, poverty and unemployment. He is also currently serving on the National Institute of Child Health and Development’s Population Science Subcommittee. He holds a Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Wisconsin—Madison. There are 13 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 699,317 times.

Publishing a research paper in a peer-reviewed journal allows you to network with other scholars, get your name and work into circulation, and further refine your ideas and research. Before submitting your paper, make sure it reflects all the work you’ve done and have several people read over it and make comments. Keep reading to learn how you can choose a journal, prepare your work for publication, submit it, and revise it after you get a response back.

Things You Should Know

• Create a list of journals you’d like to publish your work in and choose one that best aligns with your topic and your desired audience.
• Prepare your manuscript using the journal’s requirements and ask at least 2 professors or supervisors to review your paper.
• Write a cover letter that “sells” your manuscript, says how your research adds to your field and explains why you chose the specific journal you’re submitting to.

• Ask your professors or supervisors for well-respected journals that they’ve had good experiences publishing with and that they read regularly.
• Many journals also only accept specific formats, so by choosing a journal before you start, you can write your article to their specifications and increase your chances of being accepted.
• If you’ve already written a paper you’d like to publish, consider whether your research directly relates to a hot topic or area of research in the journals you’re looking into.

• Review the journal’s peer review policies and submission process to see if you’re comfortable creating or adjusting your work according to their standards.
• Open-access journals can increase your readership because anyone can access them.

• Scientific research papers: Instead of a “thesis,” you might write a “research objective” instead. This is where you state the purpose of your research.
• “This paper explores how George Washington’s experiences as a young officer may have shaped his views during difficult circumstances as a commanding officer.”
• “This paper contends that George Washington’s experiences as a young officer on the 1750s Pennsylvania frontier directly impacted his relationship with his Continental Army troops during the harsh winter at Valley Forge.”

• Scientific research papers: Include a “materials and methods” section with the step-by-step process you followed and the materials you used. [5] X Research source
• Read other research papers in your field to see how they’re written. Their format, writing style, subject matter, and vocabulary can help guide your own paper. [6] X Research source

• If you’re writing about George Washington’s experiences as a young officer, you might emphasize how this research changes our perspective of the first president of the U.S.
• Link this section to your thesis or research objective.
• If you’re writing a paper about ADHD, you might discuss other applications for your research.

• Scientific research papers: You might include your research and/or analytical methods, your main findings or results, and the significance or implications of your research.
• Try to get as many people as you can to read over your abstract and provide feedback before you submit your paper to a journal.

• They might also provide templates to help you structure your manuscript according to their specific guidelines. [11] X Research source

• Not all journal reviewers will be experts on your specific topic, so a non-expert “outsider’s perspective” can be valuable.

• If you have a paper on the purification of wastewater with fungi, you might use both the words “fungi” and “mushrooms.”
• Use software like iThenticate, Turnitin, or PlagScan to check for similarities between the submitted article and published material available online. [15] X Research source

• Header: Address the editor who will be reviewing your manuscript by their name, include the date of submission, and the journal you are submitting to.
• First paragraph: Include the title of your manuscript, the type of paper it is (like review, research, or case study), and the research question you wanted to answer and why.
• Second paragraph: Explain what was done in your research, your main findings, and why they are significant to your field.
• Third paragraph: Explain why the journal’s readers would be interested in your work and why your results are important to your field.
• Conclusion: State the author(s) and any journal requirements that your work complies with (like ethical standards”).
• “We confirm that this manuscript has not been published elsewhere and is not under consideration by another journal.”
• “All authors have approved the manuscript and agree with its submission to [insert the name of the target journal].”

• Submit your article to only one journal at a time.
• When submitting online, use your university email account. This connects you with a scholarly institution, which can add credibility to your work.

• Accept: Only minor adjustments are needed, based on the provided feedback by the reviewers. A first submission will rarely be accepted without any changes needed.
• Revise and Resubmit: Changes are needed before publication can be considered, but the journal is still very interested in your work.
• Reject and Resubmit: Extensive revisions are needed. Your work may not be acceptable for this journal, but they might also accept it if significant changes are made.
• Reject: The paper isn’t and won’t be suitable for this publication, but that doesn’t mean it might not work for another journal.

• Try organizing the reviewer comments by how easy it is to address them. That way, you can break your revisions down into more manageable parts.
• If you disagree with a comment made by a reviewer, try to provide an evidence-based explanation when you resubmit your paper.

• If you’re resubmitting your paper to the same journal, include a point-by-point response paper that talks about how you addressed all of the reviewers’ comments in your revision. [22] X Research source
• If you’re not sure which journal to submit to next, you might be able to ask the journal editor which publications they recommend.

Expert Q&A

You might also like.

• If reviewers suspect that your submitted manuscript plagiarizes another work, they may refer to a Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) flowchart to see how to move forward. [23] X Research source Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0

• ↑ https://www.wiley.com/en-us/network/publishing/research-publishing/choosing-a-journal/6-steps-to-choosing-the-right-journal-for-your-research-infographic
• ↑ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13187-020-01751-z
• ↑ https://libguides.unomaha.edu/c.php?g=100510&p=651627
• ↑ http://www.canberra.edu.au/library/start-your-research/research_help/publishing-research
• ↑ https://writingcenter.fas.harvard.edu/conclusions
• ↑ https://writing.wisc.edu/handbook/assignments/writing-an-abstract-for-your-research-paper/
• ↑ https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/book-authors-editors/your-publication-journey/manuscript-preparation
• ↑ https://apus.libanswers.com/writing/faq/2391
• ↑ https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/keyword/search-strategy
• ↑ https://ifis.libguides.com/journal-publishing-guide/submitting-your-paper
• ↑ https://www.springer.com/kr/authors-editors/authorandreviewertutorials/submitting-to-a-journal-and-peer-review/cover-letters/10285574
• ↑ http://www.apa.org/monitor/sep02/publish.aspx
• ↑ Matthew Snipp, PhD. Research Fellow, U.S. Bureau of the Census. Expert Interview. 26 March 2020.

About This Article

To publish a research paper, ask a colleague or professor to review your paper and give you feedback. Once you've revised your work, familiarize yourself with different academic journals so that you can choose the publication that best suits your paper. Make sure to look at the "Author's Guide" so you can format your paper according to the guidelines for that publication. Then, submit your paper and don't get discouraged if it is not accepted right away. You may need to revise your paper and try again. To learn about the different responses you might get from journals, see our reviewer's explanation below. Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

RAMDEV GOHIL

Oct 16, 2017

Did this article help you?

David Okandeji

Oct 23, 2019

Revati Joshi

Feb 13, 2017

Shahzad Khan

Jul 1, 2017

Apr 7, 2017

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

wikiHow Tech Help Pro:

Level up your tech skills and stay ahead of the curve

When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.

• PLOS Biology
• PLOS Climate
• PLOS Complex Systems
• PLOS Computational Biology
• PLOS Digital Health
• PLOS Genetics
• PLOS Global Public Health
• PLOS Medicine
• PLOS Mental Health
• PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
• PLOS Pathogens
• PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
• PLOS Collections

Breaking boundaries. Empowering researchers. Opening Science.

PLOS is a nonprofit, Open Access publisher empowering researchers to accelerate progress in science and medicine by leading a transformation in research communication.

Every country. Every career stage. Every area of science. Hundreds of thousands of researchers choose PLOS to share and discuss their work. Together, we collaborate to make science, and the process of publishing science, fair, equitable, and accessible for the whole community.

FEATURED COMMUNITIES

• Molecular Biology
• Microbiology
• Neuroscience
• Cancer Treatment and Research

RECENT ANNOUNCEMENTS

Written by Lindsay Morton Over 4 years: 74k+ eligible articles. Nearly 85k signed reviews. More than 30k published peer review history…

The latest quarterly update to the Open Science Indicators (OSIs) dataset was released in December, marking the one year anniversary of OSIs…

PLOS JOURNALS

PLOS publishes a suite of influential Open Access journals across all areas of science and medicine. Rigorously reported, peer reviewed and immediately available without restrictions, promoting the widest readership and impact possible. We encourage you to consider the scope of each journal before submission, as journals are editorially independent and specialized in their publication criteria and breadth of content. 

PLOS Biology PLOS Climate PLOS Computational Biology PLOS Digital Health PLOS Genetics PLOS Global Public Health PLOS Medicine PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases PLOS ONE PLOS Pathogens PLOS Sustainability and Transformation PLOS Water

Now open for submissions:

PLOS Complex Systems PLOS Mental Health

ADVANCING OPEN SCIENCE

Open opportunities for your community to see, cite, share, and build on your research. PLOS gives you more control over how and when your work becomes available.

Ready, set, share your preprint. Authors of most PLOS journals can now opt-in at submission to have PLOS post their manuscript as a preprint to bioRxiv or medRxiv.

All PLOS journals offer authors the opportunity to increase the transparency of the evaluation process by publishing their peer review history.

We have everything you need to amplify your reviews, increase the visibility of your work through PLOS, and join the movement to advance Open Science.

FEATURED RESOURCES

Ready to submit your manuscript to PLOS? Find everything you need to choose the journal that’s right for you as well as information about publication fees, metrics, and other FAQs here.

We have everything you need to write your first review, increase the visibility of your work through PLOS, and join the movement to advance Open Science.

Transform your research with PLOS.   Submit your manuscript

The 5 Best Platforms to Publish Your Academic Research

Academic research is a central component of scientific advancements and breakthrough innovations. However, your research journey is complex and ever-changing. You must take into consideration funding options, how to securely store your information, choosing where to publish your research, finding manuscript peer reviewers, and many more.

To keep up with the change, you and other researchers require modern, easy-to-navigate research platforms to help you uncover, store, verify, compile, and share content, data, and important insights to continue to carry out breakthrough research.

This article explains how to identify the best platforms for publishing your research and gives you a list of five platforms to help you publish. Towards the end, you’ll also see a mention of how Orvium can further assist you with publishing.

How to Identify the Best Platforms for Publishing

When trying to identify the best platforms for publishing your research, you have to consider several factors, including:

• Does the platform support your research journey ? Can you collaborate with other authors and researchers, discover public groups and research papers and manuscripts (including Open Access work), view interactive graphs, images, tables, etc., track citations, and build a professional research profile?
• Is the platform easy to use ? Does it offer rich functionalities that are easy to understand, and if so, which ones?
• Does it use artificial intelligence and machine learning ? Automated actions (email alerts, etc.) can help you unlock breakthroughs faster and deliver deeper insights.
• What security and governance does it have ? Platforms must be secure and compliant according to local regulations since researchers often deal with sensitive data.

The 5 Best Platforms to Publish Academic Research

Researchgate.

ResearchGate is a platform hosting over 135 million publication pages with a community of 20 million scientists. The platform allows you to show off your work, access papers and advice from other researchers, make contacts and even find jobs. Some of its more prominent features include:

• Dedicated Q&A section with searchable keywords to target experts in your particular field or area of study
• Ability to create a personal profile page where you can display all research-specific details about yourself, including up to five pieces of work (including datasets and conference papers)
• In-depth stats on who reads your work and the ability to track your citations
• A private messaging service that allows you to send messages to other researchers
• A comments section to provide feedback when viewing a paper
• A “projects” section to tell others about your upcoming work.

In addition, it's completely free to use!

Academia is a research-sharing platform with over 178 million users, 29 million papers uploaded, and 87 million visitors per month. Their goal is to accelerate research in all fields, ensure that all research is available for free and that the sharing of knowledge is available in multiple formats (videos, datasets, code, short-form content, etc.). Some of their more prominent features include:

• Mentions and search alerts that notify you when another researcher cites, thanks, or acknowledges your work, and automatic reports of search queries
• Ability to create a personal profile page
• “Profile visitor” and “readers” features let you know the title and location of those who visit your profile or read your papers so you can learn about their research interests and get in touch
• A “grants” feature to allow you to find new grants and fellowships in your field
• Advanced research discovery tools allow you to see full texts and citations of millions of papers.

The platform is based on a “freemium” business model, which provides free access to research for everyone, and paid capabilities to subscribers.

ScienceOpen

ScienceOpen is a discovery platform that empowers researchers to make an impact in their communities. The platform is committed to Open Science, combining decades of experience in traditional publishing, computing, and academic research to provide free access to knowledge to drive creativity, innovation, and development. Some of their more prominent features include:

• You can publish your most recent paper as a preprint that’s citable and includes a DOI to share with peers immediately and enhance visibility
• A multidimensional search feature for articles with 18 filters and the ability to sort results by Altmetric scores , citations, date, and rating
• Ability to create a personal profile with minimal upkeep necessary
• Access to a suite of metrics (usage, citations, etc.) of your publications
• Ability to follow other researchers to stay up-to-date on their work and expand your network.

The platform is free to use, although some features (like publishing your preprint) may cost money.

IOPscience is a platform that embraces innovative technologies to make it easier for researchers to discover and access technical, scientific, and medical content while managing their own research content. They participate in several programs that offer researchers in developing countries several ways to gain access to journals at little or no cost. Some of their other features include:

• An enhanced search filtering feature allows you to find relevant research faster
• A social bookmarking feature allows you to interact with other researchers and share articles
• Ability to create a personal profile, customize your alerts, view recently published articles within your field or area of interest, and save relevant papers or articles
• Ability to receive email alerts and RSS feeds once new content is published.

IOPscience is free to use and functions on an Open Access policy, which you can check here .

Orvium is an open, community-based research platform that allows researchers, reviewers, and publishers to share, publish, review, and manage their research. Orvium protects your work with built-in blockchain integration to ensure that you maintain the copyright of your work and not only. Some of our more notable features include:

• Access to a modern web platform with Google indexing, notifications, and mobile-ready features
• Ability to manage your entire publication process, with control over when you submit, receive peer reviews, and publish your paper
• “Collaboration” and “full traceability” features allow you to track your profile impact, get in touch with other researchers, and have ownership over your work
• Recognition badges or economic rewards are given when you peer-review.

Orvium is completely free to use.

Orvium Makes Choosing a Platform Easy

No matter what platform or community you choose to be a part of, you now know what you need to look for when choosing one. You also learned about five excellent platforms where you can publish your academic research. Orvium will remain your one-stop-shop platform for all your research needs. Do you want to know how Orvium and our communities work? Check out our platform or contact us with any questions you may have.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Get the latest posts delivered right to your inbox.

Now check your inbox and click the link to confirm your subscription.

Please enter a valid email address

Oops! There was an error sending the email, please try later.

Leyre Martínez

Recommended for you.

How to Write a Research Funding Application | Orvium

Increasing Representation and Diversity in Research with Open Science | Orvium

Your Guide to Open Access Week 2023

Get Support for Research & Publishing

Research with harvard library.

Harvard Library makes it possible for researchers from all disciplines to generate, curate, transform, and publish their research through direct engagement with library staff, access to existing data sets and tools, and robust digital repositories for data and scholarly communications.

CONNECT WITH RESEARCH EXPERTS

Our staff of experts is here to help you find existing research sources, curate your own data, and utilize our digital repositories. Together we'll figure out a plan to get what you need to bring your research beyond the walls of your lab or campus office.

Research Consultations

Library liaisons.

Many of Harvard’s professional schools offer specialized support for data services in certain disciplines.

GENERATE, CURATE, AND TRANSFORM YOUR RESEARCH

Use these services and tools to make it easier to engage with your research data and scholarly sources.

Visualization Support

Digital mapping and gis support, find existing datasets and sources.

Harvard Library provides access to repositories of data from all disciplines. Search for existing datasets or explore through APIs and curated worksets.

Finding Datasets in HOLLIS

The "Advanced Search" function in HOLLIS allows you to limit by Resource Type to "Research Data Sets." Add your own keywords to refine.

Licensed Datasets in Dataverse

As a Harvard affiliate, login to Dataverse and access thousands of licensed datasets across numerous research fields.

HathiTrust Research Center

The HathiTrust Research Center (HTRC) enables computational analysis across 17+ million digitized items.

LibraryCloud Item API

Harvard LibraryCloud is a metadata hub that provides granular, open access to a large aggregation of Harvard library bibliographic metadata.

Caselaw Access Project

The Caselaw Access Project (CAP) includes all official, book-published United States case law, converted into structured data.

STORING AND SHARING YOUR RESEARCH

Whether you’re planning on publishing data sets, scholarly articles, or working papers, Harvard Library maintains digital repositories that allow you to store and share your research, as well as access to services that help you connect your research and publications.

Harvard Dataverse

Open science framework, university resources.

Partner sites from across the University also have information to help you with research data and publishing.

Scientific Research Publishing

• Biomedical & Life Sci.
• Business & Economics
• Chemistry & Materials Sci.
• Computer Sci. & Commun.
• Earth & Environmental Sci.
• Engineering
• Medicine & Healthcare
• Physics & Mathematics
• Social Sci. & Humanities

Journals by Subject  

• Biomedical & Life Sciences
• Chemistry & Materials Science
• Computer Science & Communications
• Earth & Environmental Sciences
• Social Sciences & Humanities
• Paper Submission
• Information for Authors
• Peer-Review Resources
• Open Special Issues
• Open Access Statement
• Frequently Asked Questions

Publish with us  

• Epidemiological-Clinical Aspects of Uterine Leiomyoma at the Reference Health Center of Commune VI of the Bamako District () Alou Samaké, Lasseny Diarra, Mamadou Keita, Dramane Haidara, Mamadou Haidara, Coulibaly Soumana, Mamadou Diallo, Moussa Konaté, Mariam Maiga, MS Ag Med Elméhdi Elansari, Kassogue Djibril, Dao Seydou Zana, Samake Hawa, Konate Karim, Dembele Bertin, Coulibaly Moussa, Mariko Seydou, Colette Dohino Open Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology Vol.14 No.5 ,  May 14, 2024 DOI: 10.4236/ojog.2024.145057    5 Downloads    42 Views   
• “Flow” Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) for Depression Treatment in a Primary Healthcare General Practice—Depression, Functioning, and Health-Related Quality of Life Outcomes () Chris Griffiths, Ksenija Maravic da Silva, Harmony Jiang, David Smart, Azhar Zafar Open Journal of Depression Vol.13 No.2 ,  May 14, 2024 DOI: 10.4236/ojd.2024.132003    22 Downloads    206 Views   
• Analysis of Influence on Aerodynamic Noise of Wind Turbine Blades under Different Pitch Angles () Ruirong He, Houcai Liu, Huimin Kang, Jiale Xi Open Journal of Applied Sciences Vol.14 No.5 ,  May 14, 2024 DOI: 10.4236/ojapps.2024.145080    5 Downloads    40 Views   
• Application and Effect Analysis of Financial Engineering Tools in Portfolio Optimization () Fangyuan Cai Modern Economy Vol.15 No.5 ,  May 14, 2024 DOI: 10.4236/me.2024.155027    7 Downloads    37 Views   
• Evaluation of Interferon-Gamma Release Assay Testing and Tuberculin Skin Test for Early Diagnosis of Tuberculosis in Children and Adolescents () Yelda Sorguç, Miray Çelebi Yılmaz, Yüce Ayhan, Yakup Yaman, Şener Tulumoğlu, Aybüke Akaslan Kara, İlker Devrim Open Journal of Pediatrics Vol.14 No.3 ,  May 14, 2024 DOI: 10.4236/ojped.2024.143054    3 Downloads    23 Views   
• Assessment of the Vaccination Status of Children Aged 6 to 30 Months in a Tertiary Level Health Care Center in Côte d’Ivoire () Yenan John Patrick, Kpangni Jean Bertrand, Yao Kouassi Christian, Yeboua Yao Kossonou Roland, Aka-Tanoh Koko Aude Hélène, Avi-Siallou Christelle Honorine, Asse Kouadio Vincent Open Journal of Pediatrics Vol.14 No.3 ,  May 14, 2024 DOI: 10.4236/ojped.2024.143052    6 Downloads    33 Views   
• Journals A-Z

About SCIRP

• Publication Fees
• For Authors
• Peer-Review Issues
• Special Issues
• Manuscript Tracking System
• Subscription
• Translation & Proofreading
• Volume & Issue
• Open Access
• Publication Ethics
• Preservation
• Privacy Policy

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts

Collection  12 March 2023

Journal Top 100 - 2022

This collection highlights our most downloaded* research papers published in 2022. Featuring authors from around the world, these papers highlight valuable research from an international community.

You can also check out the Top 100 across various subject areas here .

*Data obtained from SN Insights, which is based on Digital Science’s Dimensions.

mRNA vaccine-induced antibodies more effective than natural immunity in neutralizing SARS-CoV-2 and its high affinity variants

• Dominic Esposito

Cats learn the names of their friend cats in their daily lives

• Saho Takagi
• Atsuko Saito
• Hika Kuroshima

Metformin administration is associated with enhanced response to transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma in type 2 diabetes patients

• Woo Jin Jung
• Sangmi Jang
• Jin-Wook Kim

The impact of digital media on children’s intelligence while controlling for genetic differences in cognition and socioeconomic background

• Bruno Sauce
• Magnus Liebherr
• Torkel Klingberg

Life tables of annual life expectancy and mortality for companion dogs in the United Kingdom

• Kendy Tzu-yun Teng
• Dave C. Brodbelt
• Dan G. O’Neill

Bioarchaeological and palaeogenomic portrait of two Pompeians that died during the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 AD

• Gabriele Scorrano
• Serena Viva
• Fabio Macciardi

Reading on a smartphone affects sigh generation, brain activity, and comprehension

• Motoyasu Honma
• Yuri Masaoka
• Masahiko Izumizaki

Principal Component Analyses (PCA)-based findings in population genetic studies are highly biased and must be reevaluated

• Eran Elhaik

The determinants of COVID-19 morbidity and mortality across countries

• Dianna Chang
• Kelvin Jui Keng Tan

Birdsongs alleviate anxiety and paranoia in healthy participants

• J. Sundermann

Identification of ADS024, a newly characterized strain of Bacillus velezensis with direct Clostridiodes difficile killing and toxin degradation bio-activities

• Michelle M. O’Donnell
• James W. Hegarty
• Laurent Chesnel

Multiple sclerosis genetic and non-genetic factors interact through the transient transcriptome

• Renato Umeton
• Gianmarco Bellucci
• Giovanni Ristori

The effect of metformin on the survival of colorectal cancer patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

• Zeinab Tarhini
• Kamelia Manceur
• Niki Christou

Chemical characterisation of the vapour emitted by an e-cigarette using a ceramic wick-based technology

• M. Isabel Pinto

Large-magnitude (VEI ≥ 7) ‘wet’ explosive silicic eruption preserved a Lower Miocene habitat at the Ipolytarnóc Fossil Site, North Hungary

• Dávid Karátson
• Imre Szarvas

Far-UVC (222 nm) efficiently inactivates an airborne pathogen in a room-sized chamber

• Waseem Hiwar
• Kenneth Wood

Low dose aspirin associated with greater bone mineral density in older adults

• Hongzhan Liu
• Xungang Xiao

First direct evidence of adult European eels migrating to their breeding place in the Sargasso Sea

• Rosalind M. Wright
• Adam T. Piper
• David Righton

Infections with the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant exhibit fourfold increased viral loads in the upper airways compared to Alpha or non-variants of concern

• Christian J. H. von Wintersdorff
• Jozef Dingemans
• Paul H. M. Savelkoul

Inappropriate sinus tachycardia in post-COVID-19 syndrome

• Júlia Aranyó
• Victor Bazan
• Roger Villuendas

The microstructure and the origin of the Venus from Willendorf

• Gerhard W. Weber
• Alexander Lukeneder

COVID-19 reinfections among naturally infected and vaccinated individuals

• Sezanur Rahman
• M. Mahfuzur Rahman
• Mustafizur Rahman

Lockdown measures during the COVID-19 pandemic strongly impacted the circulation of respiratory pathogens in Southern China

• Heping Wang
• Yuejie Zheng
• Wenjian Wang

Alzheimer’s disease large-scale gene expression portrait identifies exercise as the top theoretical treatment

• Mason A. Hill
• Stephen C. Gammie

COVID-19 symptoms are reduced by targeted hydration of the nose, larynx and trachea

• Carolin Elizabeth George
• Gerhard Scheuch
• David A. Edwards

SARS-CoV-2 spike protein induces cognitive deficit and anxiety-like behavior in mouse via non-cell autonomous hippocampal neuronal death

• Junyoung Oh
• Woo-Hyun Cho
• Sung Joong Lee

Abdominal pain patterns during COVID-19: an observational study

• Alexandre Balaphas
• Kyriaki Gkoufa
• Christian Toso

Detection of human pathogenic bacteria in rectal DNA samples from Zalophus californianus in the Gulf of California, Mexico

• Francesco Cicala
• David Ramírez-Delgado
• Alexei F. Licea-Navarro

Industrialised fishing nations largely contribute to floating plastic pollution in the North Pacific subtropical gyre

• Laurent Lebreton
• Sarah-Jeanne Royer
• Matthias Egger

Hypertension and diabetes including their earlier stage are associated with increased risk of sudden cardiac arrest

• Seung Young Roh
• Young-Hoon Kim

Utility of an artificial intelligence system for classification of esophageal lesions when simulating its clinical use

• Ayaka Tajiri
• Ryu Ishihara
• Tomohiro Tada

Prevalence, age of decision, and interpersonal warmth judgements of childfree adults

• Zachary P. Neal
• Jennifer Watling Neal

Acute and protracted abstinence from methamphetamine bidirectionally changes intrinsic excitability of indirect pathway spiny projection neurons in the dorsomedial striatum

• Sanghoon Choi
• Steven M. Graves

Indeterminacy of cannabis impairment and ∆ 9 -tetrahydrocannabinol (∆ 9 -THC) levels in blood and breath

• Gregory T. Wurz
• Michael W. DeGregorio

High rates of plasmid cotransformation in E. coli overturn the clonality myth and reveal colony development

• Delia Tomoiaga
• Jaclyn Bubnell
• Paul Feinstein

Metformin sensitizes leukemic cells to cytotoxic lymphocytes by increasing expression of intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1)

• Nerea Allende-Vega
• Joaquin Marco Brualla
• Martin Villalba

Incorporation of machine learning and deep neural network approaches into a remote sensing-integrated crop model for the simulation of rice growth

• Seungtaek Jeong
• Jong-min Yeom

Perceiving societal pressure to be happy is linked to poor well-being, especially in happy nations

• Egon Dejonckheere
• Joshua J. Rhee
• Brock Bastian

The earliest Pleistocene record of a large-bodied hominin from the Levant supports two out-of-Africa dispersal events

• Alon Barash
• Miriam Belmaker

Generation mechanism and prediction of an observed extreme rogue wave

• Johannes Gemmrich

Fitness tracking reveals task-specific associations between memory, mental health, and physical activity

• Jeremy R. Manning
• Gina M. Notaro
• Paxton C. Fitzpatrick

Domestic dogs ( Canis familiaris ) grieve over the loss of a conspecific

• Stefania Uccheddu
• Lucia Ronconi
• Federica Pirrone

Human transgenerational observations of regular smoking before puberty on fat mass in grandchildren and great-grandchildren

• Jean Golding
• Steve Gregory
• Matthew Suderman

Chlamydia pneumoniae can infect the central nervous system via the olfactory and trigeminal nerves and contributes to Alzheimer’s disease risk

• Jenny A. K. Ekberg

Oxycodone/naloxone versus tapentadol in real-world chronic non-cancer pain management: an observational and pharmacogenetic study

• Jordi Barrachina
• Cesar Margarit
• Ana M. Peiró

Cooking methods are associated with inflammatory factors, renal function, and other hormones and nutritional biomarkers in older adults

• Montserrat Rodríguez-Ayala
• José Ramón Banegas
• Pilar Guallar-Castillón

Classification of pig calls produced from birth to slaughter according to their emotional valence and context of production

• Elodie F. Briefer
• Ciara C.-R. Sypherd
• Céline Tallet

Higher emotional awareness is associated with greater domain-general reflective tendencies

• Michelle Persich
• William D. S. Killgore

A large Megaraptoridae (Theropoda: Coelurosauria) from Upper Cretaceous (Maastrichtian) of Patagonia, Argentina

• Alexis M. Aranciaga Rolando
• Matias J. Motta
• Fernando E. Novas

Long COVID occurrence in COVID-19 survivors

• Aya Sugiyama
• Junko Tanaka

Water activated disposable paper battery

• Alexandre Poulin
• Xavier Aeby
• Gustav Nyström

Intestinal preservation in a birdlike dinosaur supports conservatism in digestive canal evolution among theropods

• Yichuan Liu

Antiviral effect of cetylpyridinium chloride in mouthwash on SARS-CoV-2

• Hirofumi Sawa

Evidence of an oceanic impact and megatsunami sedimentation in Chryse Planitia, Mars

• J. Alexis P. Rodriguez
• Darrel K. Robertson
• Mario Zarroca

Curcumin and metformin synergistically modulate peripheral and central immune mechanisms of pain

• Peththa Wadu Dasuni Wasana
• Pasarapa Towiwat

The first occurrence of an avian-style respiratory infection in a non-avian dinosaur

• D. Cary Woodruff
• Ewan D. S. Wolff
• Lawrence M. Witmer

Optimal linear estimation models predict 1400–2900 years of overlap between Homo sapiens and Neandertals prior to their disappearance from France and northern Spain

• Igor Djakovic
• Alastair Key
• Marie Soressi

The influence of time on the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 serological testing

• Arturo Torres Ortiz
• Fernanda Fenn Torrente
• Louis Grandjean

Online misinformation is linked to early COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy and refusal

• Francesco Pierri
• Brea L. Perry
• John Bryden

A distinct symptom pattern emerges for COVID-19 long-haul: a nationwide study

• Melissa D. Pinto
• Charles A. Downs
• Natalie Lambert

SARS-CoV-2-reactive IFN-γ-producing CD4 + and CD8 + T cells in blood do not correlate with clinical severity in unvaccinated critically ill COVID-19 patients

• Beatriz Olea
• Eliseo Albert
• David Navarro

Classification of 74 facial emoji’s emotional states on the valence-arousal axes

• Gaku Kutsuzawa
• Hiroyuki Umemura
• Yoshiyuki Kobayashi

The emergence of a new sex-system (XX/XY 1 Y 2 ) suggests a species complex in the “monotypic” rodent Oecomys auyantepui (Rodentia, Sigmodontinae)

• Willam Oliveira da Silva
• Celina Coelho Rosa
• Cleusa Yoshiko Nagamachi

Detection of COVID-19 using multimodal data from a wearable device: results from the first TemPredict Study

• Ashley E. Mason
• Frederick M. Hecht
• Benjamin L. Smarr

Spinal degeneration is associated with lumbar multifidus morphology in secondary care patients with low back or leg pain

• Jeffrey R. Cooley
• Tue S. Jensen
• Jeffrey J. Hebert

Phenomenology and content of the inhaled N , N -dimethyltryptamine ( N , N -DMT) experience

• David Wyndham Lawrence
• Robin Carhart-Harris
• Christopher Timmermann

A gigantic bizarre marine turtle (Testudines: Chelonioidea) from the Middle Campanian (Late Cretaceous) of South-western Europe

• Oscar Castillo-Visa
• Àngel H. Luján
• Albert Sellés

The first experience with fully endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy and discectomy for radiculopathy performed in Viet Duc University Hospital

• Son Ngoc Dinh
• Hung The Dinh

Mapping the “catscape” formed by a population of pet cats with outdoor access

• Richard Bischof
• Nina Rosita Hansen
• Torbjørn Haugaasen

Investigation of humans individual differences as predictors of their animal interaction styles, focused on the domestic cat

• Lauren R. Finka
• Lucia Ripari
• Marnie L. Brennan

Genesis of fecal floatation is causally linked to gut microbial colonization in mice

• Syed Mohammed Musheer Aalam
• Daphne Norma Crasta
• Nagarajan Kannan

Young children’s screen time during the first COVID-19 lockdown in 12 countries

• Christina Bergmann
• Nevena Dimitrova
• Nivedita Mani

Cichlids and stingrays can add and subtract ‘one’ in the number space from one to five

• V. Schluessel

Elevated estradiol levels in frozen embryo transfer have different effects on pregnancy outcomes depending on the stage of transferred embryos

• Liming Ruan

Group VR experiences can produce ego attenuation and connectedness comparable to psychedelics

• David R. Glowacki
• Rhoslyn Roebuck Williams
• Mike Chatziapostolou

New therizinosaurid dinosaur from the marine Osoushinai Formation (Upper Cretaceous, Japan) provides insight for function and evolution of therizinosaur claws

• Yoshitsugu Kobayashi
• Ryuji Takasaki
• Yoshinori Hikida

Smartphone-based ecological momentary assessment reveals mental health benefits of birdlife

• Ryan Hammoud
• Stefania Tognin
• Andrea Mechelli

Long-term outcomes of cataract surgery with toric intraocular lens implantation by the type of preoperative astigmatism

• Tetsuro Oshika
• Shinichiro Nakano
• Tsutomu Kaneko

Forest fire detection system using wireless sensor networks and machine learning

• Udaya Dampage
• Lumini Bandaranayake
• Bathiya Jayasanka

Misinformation of COVID-19 vaccines and vaccine hesitancy

• Sun Kyong Lee
• Juhyung Sun
• Shane Connelly

Deep language algorithms predict semantic comprehension from brain activity

• Charlotte Caucheteux
• Alexandre Gramfort
• Jean-Rémi King

Children with autism spectrum disorder show atypical electroencephalographic response to processing contextual incongruencies

• Amparo V. Márquez-García
• Vasily A. Vakorin
• Sam M. Doesburg

A generalizable one health framework for the control of zoonotic diseases

• Ria R. Ghai
• Ryan M. Wallace
• Casey Barton Behravesh

HS3ST2 expression induces the cell autonomous aggregation of tau

• M. B. Huynh
• N. Rebergue
• D. Papy-Garcia

Exceptional warming over the Barents area

• Ketil Isaksen
• Øyvind Nordli
• Tatiana Karandasheva

A new Early Cretaceous lizard in Myanmar amber with exceptionally preserved integument

• Andrej Čerňanský
• Edward L. Stanley
• Susan E. Evans

Coffee consumption and diabetic retinopathy in adults with diabetes mellitus

• Hak Jun Lee
• Daniel Duck-Jin Hwang

Shifts in the foraging tactics of crocodiles following invasion by toxic prey

• Abhilasha Aiyer
• Richard Shine
• Georgia Ward-Fear

Production of high loading insulin nanoparticles suitable for oral delivery by spray drying and freeze drying techniques

• Alberto Baldelli
• Anubhav Pratap-Singh

Cable news and COVID-19 vaccine uptake

• Matteo Pinna
• Christoph Goessmann

Estimating the time of last drinking from blood ethyl glucuronide and ethyl sulphate concentrations

• Zhongyuan Guo

COVID-19 infections in infants

• Małgorzata Sobolewska-Pilarczyk
• Maria Pokorska-Śpiewak
• Małgorzata Pawłowska

COVID-19 increases the risk for the onset of atrial fibrillation in hospitalized patients

• Jakob Wollborn
• Sergey Karamnov
• Jochen D. Muehlschlegel

Childhood temperament and adulthood personality differentially predict life outcomes

• Amanda J. Wright
• Joshua J. Jackson

Antivirus applied to JAR malware detection based on runtime behaviors

• Ricardo P. Pinheiro
• Sidney M. L. Lima
• Wellington P. dos Santos

Therapeutic enzyme engineering using a generative neural network

• Andrew Giessel
• Athanasios Dousis
• Stuart Licht

Identification of genes associated with human-canine communication in canine evolution

• Akiko Tonoike
• Ken-ichi Otaki
• Miho Nagasawa

Breath chemical markers of sexual arousal in humans

• G. Pugliese
• J. Williams

A 5-km-thick reservoir with > 380,000 km 3 of magma within the ancient Earth's crust

• Rais Latypov
• Sofya Chistyakova
• Mauritz van der Merwe

Return of large fin whale feeding aggregations to historical whaling grounds in the Southern Ocean

• Helena Herr
• Sacha Viquerat
• Bettina Meyer

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

MIT Technology Review

• Newsletters

Google helped make an exquisitely detailed map of a tiny piece of the human brain

A small brain sample was sliced into 5,000 pieces, and machine learning helped stitch it back together.

• Cassandra Willyard archive page

A team led by scientists from Harvard and Google has created a 3D, nanoscale-resolution map of a single cubic millimeter of the human brain. Although the map covers just a fraction of the organ—a whole brain is a million times larger—that piece contains roughly 57,000 cells, about 230 millimeters of blood vessels, and nearly 150 million synapses. It is currently the highest-resolution picture of the human brain ever created.

To make a map this finely detailed, the team had to cut the tissue sample into 5,000 slices and scan them with a high-speed electron microscope. Then they used a machine-learning model to help electronically stitch the slices back together and label the features. The raw data set alone took up 1.4 petabytes. “It’s probably the most computer-intensive work in all of neuroscience,” says Michael Hawrylycz, a computational neuroscientist at the Allen Institute for Brain Science, who was not involved in the research. “There is a Herculean amount of work involved.”

Many other brain atlases exist, but most provide much lower-resolution data. At the nanoscale, researchers can trace the brain’s wiring one neuron at a time to the synapses, the places where they connect. “To really understand how the human brain works, how it processes information, how it stores memories, we will ultimately need a map that’s at that resolution,” says Viren Jain, a senior research scientist at Google and coauthor on the paper, published in Science on May 9 . The data set itself and a preprint version of this paper were released in 2021 .

Brain atlases come in many forms. Some reveal how the cells are organized. Others cover gene expression. This one focuses on connections between cells, a field called “connectomics.” The outermost layer of the brain contains roughly 16 billion neurons that link up with each other to form trillions of connections. A single neuron might receive information from hundreds or even thousands of other neurons and send information to a similar number. That makes tracing these connections an exceedingly complex task, even in just a small piece of the brain..  

To create this map, the team faced a number of hurdles. The first problem was finding a sample of brain tissue. The brain deteriorates quickly after death, so cadaver tissue doesn’t work. Instead, the team used a piece of tissue removed from a woman with epilepsy during brain surgery that was meant to help control her seizures.

Once the researchers had the sample, they had to carefully preserve it in resin so that it could be cut into slices, each about a thousandth the thickness of a human hair. Then they imaged the sections using a high-speed electron microscope designed specifically for this project. 

Next came the computational challenge. “You have all of these wires traversing everywhere in three dimensions, making all kinds of different connections,” Jain says. The team at Google used a machine-learning model to stitch the slices back together, align each one with the next, color-code the wiring, and find the connections. This is harder than it might seem. “If you make a single mistake, then all of the connections attached to that wire are now incorrect,” Jain says. 

“The ability to get this deep a reconstruction of any human brain sample is an important advance,” says Seth Ament, a neuroscientist at the University of Maryland. The map is “the closest to the  ground truth that we can get right now.” But he also cautions that it’s a single brain specimen taken from a single individual. 

The map, which is freely available at a web platform called Neuroglancer , is meant to be a resource other researchers can use to make their own discoveries. “Now anybody who’s interested in studying the human cortex in this level of detail can go into the data themselves. They can proofread certain structures to make sure everything is correct, and then publish their own findings,” Jain says. (The preprint has already been cited at least 136 times .) 

The team has already identified some surprises. For example, some of the long tendrils that carry signals from one neuron to the next formed “whorls,” spots where they twirled around themselves. Axons typically form a single synapse to transmit information to the next cell. The team identified single axons that formed repeated connections—in some cases, 50 separate synapses. Why that might be isn’t yet clear, but the strong bonds could help facilitate very quick or strong reactions to certain stimuli, Jain says. “It’s a very simple finding about the organization of the human cortex,” he says. But “we didn’t know this before because we didn’t have maps at this resolution.”

The data set was full of surprises, says Jeff Lichtman, a neuroscientist at Harvard University who helped lead the research. “There were just so many things in it that were incompatible with what you would read in a textbook.” The researchers may not have explanations for what they’re seeing, but they have plenty of new questions: “That’s the way science moves forward.” 

Biotechnology and health

How scientists traced a mysterious covid case back to six toilets.

When wastewater surveillance turns into a hunt for a single infected individual, the ethics get tricky.

An AI-driven “factory of drugs” claims to have hit a big milestone

Insilico is part of a wave of companies betting on AI as the "next amazing revolution" in biology

• Antonio Regalado archive page

The quest to legitimize longevity medicine

Longevity clinics offer a mix of services that largely cater to the wealthy. Now there’s a push to establish their work as a credible medical field.

• Jessica Hamzelou archive page

There is a new most expensive drug in the world. Price tag: $4.25 million

But will the latest gene therapy suffer the curse of the costliest drug?

Stay connected

Get the latest updates from mit technology review.

Discover special offers, top stories, upcoming events, and more.

Thank you for submitting your email!

It looks like something went wrong.

We’re having trouble saving your preferences. Try refreshing this page and updating them one more time. If you continue to get this message, reach out to us at [email protected] with a list of newsletters you’d like to receive.

More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 - a new record

• PMID: 38087103
• DOI: 10.1038/d41586-023-03974-8

Keywords: Publishing; Scientific community.

Publication types

• History, 21st Century
• Retraction of Publication as Topic*
• Scientific Misconduct / history
• Scientific Misconduct / statistics & numerical data