procedure to submit research paper

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 699,660 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.

Step 1 Create a list of journals you’d like to publish your work in.

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.

Step 2 Look at each journal’s audience, exposure, policies, and procedures.

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.

Step 1 Craft an effective introduction with a thesis statement.

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.”

Step 2 Write the literature review and the body of your paper.

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

Step 3 Write your conclusion that ties back to your thesis or research objective.

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.

Step 4 Write an abstract that describes what your paper is about.

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.

Step 1 Prepare your manuscript according to the journal’s requirements.

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

Step 2 Ask 2 colleagues to review your paper and revise it with their notes.

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

Step 1 Check your sources for plagiarism and identify 5 to 6 keywords.

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

Step 2 Write a cover letter explaining why you chose their journal.

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].”

Step 3 Submit your article according to the journal’s submission guidelines.

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.

Step 1 Try not to panic when you get the journal’s initial response.

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.

Step 2 Revise your paper based on the reviewers’ feedback.

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.

Step 3 Resubmit to the same journal or choose another from your list.

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

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

Watch Articles

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

Get all the best how-tos!

Home » How to Publish a Research Paper – Step by Step Guide

How to Publish a Research Paper – Step by Step Guide

Table of Contents

Publishing a research paper is an important step for researchers to disseminate their findings to a wider audience and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in their field. Whether you are a graduate student, a postdoctoral fellow, or an established researcher, publishing a paper requires careful planning, rigorous research, and clear writing. In this process, you will need to identify a research question , conduct a thorough literature review , design a methodology, analyze data, and draw conclusions. Additionally, you will need to consider the appropriate journals or conferences to submit your work to and adhere to their guidelines for formatting and submission. In this article, we will discuss some ways to publish your Research Paper.

How to Publish a Research Paper

To Publish a Research Paper follow the guide below:

Conduct original research : Conduct thorough research on a specific topic or problem. Collect data, analyze it, and draw conclusions based on your findings.
Write the paper : Write a detailed paper describing your research. It should include an abstract, introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion.
Choose a suitable journal or conference : Look for a journal or conference that specializes in your research area. You can check their submission guidelines to ensure your paper meets their requirements.
Prepare your submission: Follow the guidelines and prepare your submission, including the paper, abstract, cover letter, and any other required documents.
Submit the paper: Submit your paper online through the journal or conference website. Make sure you meet the submission deadline.
Peer-review process : Your paper will be reviewed by experts in the field who will provide feedback on the quality of your research, methodology, and conclusions.
Revisions : Based on the feedback you receive, revise your paper and resubmit it.
Acceptance : Once your paper is accepted, you will receive a notification from the journal or conference. You may need to make final revisions before the paper is published.
Publication : Your paper will be published online or in print. You can also promote your work through social media or other channels to increase its visibility.

How to Choose Journal for Research Paper Publication

Here are some steps to follow to help you select an appropriate journal:

Identify your research topic and audience : Your research topic and intended audience should guide your choice of journal. Identify the key journals in your field of research and read the scope and aim of the journal to determine if your paper is a good fit.
Analyze the journal’s impact and reputation : Check the impact factor and ranking of the journal, as well as its acceptance rate and citation frequency. A high-impact journal can give your paper more visibility and credibility.
Consider the journal’s publication policies : Look for the journal’s publication policies such as the word count limit, formatting requirements, open access options, and submission fees. Make sure that you can comply with the requirements and that the journal is in line with your publication goals.
Look at recent publications : Review recent issues of the journal to evaluate whether your paper would fit in with the journal’s current content and style.
Seek advice from colleagues and mentors: Ask for recommendations and suggestions from your colleagues and mentors in your field, especially those who have experience publishing in the same or similar journals.
Be prepared to make changes : Be prepared to revise your paper according to the requirements and guidelines of the chosen journal. It is also important to be open to feedback from the editor and reviewers.

List of Journals for Research Paper Publications

There are thousands of academic journals covering various fields of research. Here are some of the most popular ones, categorized by field:

General/Multidisciplinary

Nature: https://www.nature.com/
Science: https://www.sciencemag.org/
PLOS ONE: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS): https://www.pnas.org/
The Lancet: https://www.thelancet.com/
JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association): https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama

Social Sciences/Humanities

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/psp
Journal of Consumer Research: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/journals/jcr
Journal of Educational Psychology: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/edu
Journal of Applied Psychology: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/apl
Journal of Communication: https://academic.oup.com/joc
American Journal of Political Science: https://ajps.org/
Journal of International Business Studies: https://www.jibs.net/
Journal of Marketing Research: https://www.ama.org/journal-of-marketing-research/

Natural Sciences

Journal of Biological Chemistry: https://www.jbc.org/
Cell: https://www.cell.com/
Science Advances: https://advances.sciencemag.org/
Chemical Reviews: https://pubs.acs.org/journal/chreay
Angewandte Chemie: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15213765
Physical Review Letters: https://journals.aps.org/prl/
Journal of Geophysical Research: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/2156531X
Journal of High Energy Physics: https://link.springer.com/journal/13130

Engineering/Technology

IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentIssue.jsp?punumber=5962385
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentIssue.jsp?punumber=59
IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentIssue.jsp?punumber=42
IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentIssue.jsp?punumber=87
Journal of Engineering Mechanics: https://ascelibrary.org/journal/jenmdt
Journal of Materials Science: https://www.springer.com/journal/10853
Journal of Chemical Engineering of Japan: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/browse/jcej
Journal of Mechanical Design: https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/mechanicaldesign

Medical/Health Sciences

New England Journal of Medicine: https://www.nejm.org/
The BMJ (formerly British Medical Journal): https://www.bmj.com/
Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA): https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama
Annals of Internal Medicine: https://www.acpjournals.org/journal/aim
American Journal of Epidemiology: https://academic.oup.com/aje
Journal of Clinical Oncology: https://ascopubs.org/journal/jco
Journal of Infectious Diseases: https://academic.oup.com/jid

List of Conferences for Research Paper Publications

There are many conferences that accept research papers for publication. The specific conferences you should consider will depend on your field of research. Here are some suggestions for conferences in a few different fields:

Computer Science and Information Technology:

IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM): https://www.ieee-infocom.org/
ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Data Communication: https://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/
IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP): https://www.ieee-security.org/TC/SP/
ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS): https://www.sigsac.org/ccs/
ACM Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (CHI): https://chi2022.acm.org/

Engineering:

IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA): https://www.ieee-icra.org/
International Conference on Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering (ICMAE): http://www.icmae.org/
International Conference on Civil and Environmental Engineering (ICCEE): http://www.iccee.org/
International Conference on Materials Science and Engineering (ICMSE): http://www.icmse.org/
International Conference on Energy and Power Engineering (ICEPE): http://www.icepe.org/

Natural Sciences:

American Chemical Society National Meeting & Exposition: https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/meetings/national-meeting.html
American Physical Society March Meeting: https://www.aps.org/meetings/march/
International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology (ICEST): http://www.icest.org/
International Conference on Natural Science and Environment (ICNSE): http://www.icnse.org/
International Conference on Life Science and Biological Engineering (LSBE): http://www.lsbe.org/

Social Sciences:

Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association (ASA): https://www.asanet.org/annual-meeting-2022
International Conference on Social Science and Humanities (ICSSH): http://www.icssh.org/
International Conference on Psychology and Behavioral Sciences (ICPBS): http://www.icpbs.org/
International Conference on Education and Social Science (ICESS): http://www.icess.org/
International Conference on Management and Information Science (ICMIS): http://www.icmis.org/

How to Publish a Research Paper in Journal

Publishing a research paper in a journal is a crucial step in disseminating scientific knowledge and contributing to the field. Here are the general steps to follow:

Choose a research topic : Select a topic of your interest and identify a research question or problem that you want to investigate. Conduct a literature review to identify the gaps in the existing knowledge that your research will address.
Conduct research : Develop a research plan and methodology to collect data and conduct experiments. Collect and analyze data to draw conclusions that address the research question.
Write a paper: Organize your findings into a well-structured paper with clear and concise language. Your paper should include an introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use academic language and provide references for your sources.
Choose a journal: Choose a journal that is relevant to your research topic and audience. Consider factors such as impact factor, acceptance rate, and the reputation of the journal.
Follow journal guidelines : Review the submission guidelines and formatting requirements of the journal. Follow the guidelines carefully to ensure that your paper meets the journal’s requirements.
Submit your paper : Submit your paper to the journal through the online submission system or by email. Include a cover letter that briefly explains the significance of your research and why it is suitable for the journal.
Wait for reviews: Your paper will be reviewed by experts in the field. Be prepared to address their comments and make revisions to your paper.
Revise and resubmit: Make revisions to your paper based on the reviewers’ comments and resubmit it to the journal. If your paper is accepted, congratulations! If not, consider revising and submitting it to another journal.
Address reviewer comments : Reviewers may provide comments and suggestions for revisions to your paper. Address these comments carefully and thoughtfully to improve the quality of your paper.
Submit the final version: Once your revisions are complete, submit the final version of your paper to the journal. Be sure to follow any additional formatting guidelines and requirements provided by the journal.
Publication : If your paper is accepted, it will be published in the journal. Some journals provide online publication while others may publish a print version. Be sure to cite your published paper in future research and communicate your findings to the scientific community.

How to Publish a Research Paper for Students

Here are some steps you can follow to publish a research paper as an Under Graduate or a High School Student:

Select a topic: Choose a topic that is relevant and interesting to you, and that you have a good understanding of.
Conduct research : Gather information and data on your chosen topic through research, experiments, surveys, or other means.
Write the paper : Start with an outline, then write the introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion sections of the paper. Be sure to follow any guidelines provided by your instructor or the journal you plan to submit to.
Edit and revise: Review your paper for errors in spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Ask a peer or mentor to review your paper and provide feedback for improvement.
Choose a journal : Look for journals that publish papers in your field of study and that are appropriate for your level of research. Some popular journals for students include PLOS ONE, Nature, and Science.
Submit the paper: Follow the submission guidelines for the journal you choose, which typically include a cover letter, abstract, and formatting requirements. Be prepared to wait several weeks to months for a response.
Address feedback : If your paper is accepted with revisions, address the feedback from the reviewers and resubmit your paper. If your paper is rejected, review the feedback and consider revising and resubmitting to a different journal.

How to Publish a Research Paper for Free

Publishing a research paper for free can be challenging, but it is possible. Here are some steps you can take to publish your research paper for free:

Choose a suitable open-access journal: Look for open-access journals that are relevant to your research area. Open-access journals allow readers to access your paper without charge, so your work will be more widely available.
Check the journal’s reputation : Before submitting your paper, ensure that the journal is reputable by checking its impact factor, publication history, and editorial board.
Follow the submission guidelines : Every journal has specific guidelines for submitting papers. Make sure to follow these guidelines carefully to increase the chances of acceptance.
Submit your paper : Once you have completed your research paper, submit it to the journal following their submission guidelines.
Wait for the review process: Your paper will undergo a peer-review process, where experts in your field will evaluate your work. Be patient during this process, as it can take several weeks or even months.
Revise your paper : If your paper is rejected, don’t be discouraged. Revise your paper based on the feedback you receive from the reviewers and submit it to another open-access journal.
Promote your research: Once your paper is published, promote it on social media and other online platforms. This will increase the visibility of your work and help it reach a wider audience.

Journals and Conferences for Free Research Paper publications

Here are the websites of the open-access journals and conferences mentioned:

Open-Access Journals:

PLOS ONE – https://journals.plos.org/plosone/
BMC Research Notes – https://bmcresnotes.biomedcentral.com/
Frontiers in… – https://www.frontiersin.org/
Journal of Open Research Software – https://openresearchsoftware.metajnl.com/
PeerJ – https://peerj.com/

Conferences:

IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM) – https://globecom2022.ieee-globecom.org/
IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM) – https://infocom2022.ieee-infocom.org/
IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM) – https://www.ieee-icdm.org/
ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Data Communication (SIGCOMM) – https://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/
ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS) – https://www.sigsac.org/ccs/CCS2022/

Importance of Research Paper Publication

Research paper publication is important for several reasons, both for individual researchers and for the scientific community as a whole. Here are some reasons why:

Advancing scientific knowledge : Research papers provide a platform for researchers to present their findings and contribute to the body of knowledge in their field. These papers often contain novel ideas, experimental data, and analyses that can help to advance scientific understanding.
Building a research career : Publishing research papers is an essential component of building a successful research career. Researchers are often evaluated based on the number and quality of their publications, and having a strong publication record can increase one’s chances of securing funding, tenure, or a promotion.
Peer review and quality control: Publication in a peer-reviewed journal means that the research has been scrutinized by other experts in the field. This peer review process helps to ensure the quality and validity of the research findings.
Recognition and visibility : Publishing a research paper can bring recognition and visibility to the researchers and their work. It can lead to invitations to speak at conferences, collaborations with other researchers, and media coverage.
Impact on society : Research papers can have a significant impact on society by informing policy decisions, guiding clinical practice, and advancing technological innovation.

Advantages of Research Paper Publication

There are several advantages to publishing a research paper, including:

Recognition: Publishing a research paper allows researchers to gain recognition for their work, both within their field and in the academic community as a whole. This can lead to new collaborations, invitations to conferences, and other opportunities to share their research with a wider audience.
Career advancement : A strong publication record can be an important factor in career advancement, particularly in academia. Publishing research papers can help researchers secure funding, grants, and promotions.
Dissemination of knowledge : Research papers are an important way to share new findings and ideas with the broader scientific community. By publishing their research, scientists can contribute to the collective body of knowledge in their field and help advance scientific understanding.
Feedback and peer review : Publishing a research paper allows other experts in the field to provide feedback on the research, which can help improve the quality of the work and identify potential flaws or limitations. Peer review also helps ensure that research is accurate and reliable.
Citation and impact : Published research papers can be cited by other researchers, which can help increase the impact and visibility of the research. High citation rates can also help establish a researcher’s reputation and credibility within their field.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

How to Cite Research Paper – All Formats and...

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Paper Format – Types, Examples and...

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Research Paper Title – Writing Guide and Example

Research Paper Introduction – Writing Guide and...

Home → Get Published → How to Publish a Research Paper: A Step-by-Step Guide

How to Publish a Research Paper: A Step-by-Step Guide

Jordan Kruszynski

January 4, 2024

You’re in academia.

You’re going steady.

Your research is going well and you begin to wonder: ‘ How exactly do I get a research paper published?’

If this is the question on your lips, then this step-by-step guide is the one for you. We’ll be walking you through the whole process of how to publish a research paper.

Publishing a research paper is a significant milestone for researchers and academics, as it allows you to share your findings, contribute to your field of study, and start to gain serious recognition within the wider academic community. So, want to know how to publish a research paper? By following our guide, you’ll get a firm grasp of the steps involved in this process, giving you the best chance of successfully navigating the publishing process and getting your work out there.

Understanding the Publishing Process

To begin, it’s crucial to understand that getting a research paper published is a multi-step process. From beginning to end, it could take as little as 2 months before you see your paper nestled in the pages of your chosen journal. On the other hand, it could take as long as a year .

Below, we set out the steps before going into more detail on each one. Getting a feel for these steps will help you to visualise what lies ahead, and prepare yourself for each of them in turn. It’s important to remember that you won’t actually have control over every step – in fact, some of them will be decided by people you’ll probably never meet. However, knowing which parts of the process are yours to decide will allow you to adjust your approach and attitude accordingly.

Each of the following stages will play a vital role in the eventual publication of your paper:

Preparing Your Research Paper
Finding the Right Journal
Crafting a Strong Manuscript
Navigating the Peer-Review Process
Submitting Your Paper
Dealing with Rejections and Revising Your Paper

Step 1: Preparing Your Research Paper

It all starts here. The quality and content of your research paper is of fundamental importance if you want to get it published. This step will be different for every researcher depending on the nature of your research, but if you haven’t yet settled on a topic, then consider the following advice:

Choose an interesting and relevant topic that aligns with current trends in your field. If your research touches on the passions and concerns of your academic peers or wider society, it may be more likely to capture attention and get published successfully.
Conduct a comprehensive literature review (link to lit. review article once it’s published) to identify the state of existing research and any knowledge gaps within it. Aiming to fill a clear gap in the knowledge of your field is a great way to increase the practicality of your research and improve its chances of getting published.
Structure your paper in a clear and organised manner, including all the necessary sections such as title, abstract, introduction (link to the ‘how to write a research paper intro’ article once it’s published) , methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion.
Adhere to the formatting guidelines provided by your target journal to ensure that your paper is accepted as viable for publishing. More on this in the next section…

Step 2: Finding the Right Journal

Understanding how to publish a research paper involves selecting the appropriate journal for your work. This step is critical for successful publication, and you should take several factors into account when deciding which journal to apply for:

Conduct thorough research to identify journals that specialise in your field of study and have published similar research. Naturally, if you submit a piece of research in molecular genetics to a journal that specialises in geology, you won’t be likely to get very far.
Consider factors such as the journal’s scope, impact factor, and target audience. Today there is a wide array of journals to choose from, including traditional and respected print journals, as well as numerous online, open-access endeavours. Some, like Nature , even straddle both worlds.
Review the submission guidelines provided by the journal and ensure your paper meets all the formatting requirements and word limits. This step is key. Nature, for example, offers a highly informative series of pages that tells you everything you need to know in order to satisfy their formatting guidelines (plus more on the whole submission process).
Note that these guidelines can differ dramatically from journal to journal, and details really do matter. You might submit an outstanding piece of research, but if it includes, for example, images in the wrong size or format, this could mean a lengthy delay to getting it published. If you get everything right first time, you’ll save yourself a lot of time and trouble, as well as strengthen your publishing chances in the first place.

Step 3: Crafting a Strong Manuscript

Crafting a strong manuscript is crucial to impress journal editors and reviewers. Look at your paper as a complete package, and ensure that all the sections tie together to deliver your findings with clarity and precision.

Begin by creating a clear and concise title that accurately reflects the content of your paper.
Compose an informative abstract that summarises the purpose, methodology, results, and significance of your study.
Craft an engaging introduction (link to the research paper introduction article) that draws your reader in.
Develop a well-structured methodology section, presenting your results effectively using tables and figures.
Write a compelling discussion and conclusion that emphasise the significance of your findings.

Step 4: Navigating the Peer-Review Process

Once you submit your research paper to a journal, it undergoes a rigorous peer-review process to ensure its quality and validity. In peer-review, experts in your field assess your research and provide feedback and suggestions for improvement, ultimately determining whether your paper is eligible for publishing or not. You are likely to encounter several models of peer-review, based on which party – author, reviewer, or both – remains anonymous throughout the process.

When your paper undergoes the peer-review process, be prepared for constructive criticism and address the comments you receive from your reviewer thoughtfully, providing clear and concise responses to their concerns or suggestions. These could make all the difference when it comes to making your next submission.

The peer-review process can seem like a closed book at times. Check out our discussion of the issue with philosopher and academic Amna Whiston in The Research Beat podcast!

Step 5: Submitting Your Paper

As we’ve already pointed out, one of the key elements in how to publish a research paper is ensuring that you meticulously follow the journal’s submission guidelines. Strive to comply with all formatting requirements, including citation styles, font, margins, and reference structure.

Before the final submission, thoroughly proofread your paper for errors, including grammar, spelling, and any inconsistencies in your data or analysis. At this stage, consider seeking feedback from colleagues or mentors to further improve the quality of your paper.

Step 6: Dealing with Rejections and Revising Your Paper

Rejection is a common part of the publishing process, but it shouldn’t discourage you. Analyse reviewer comments objectively and focus on the constructive feedback provided. Make necessary revisions and improvements to your paper to address the concerns raised by reviewers. If needed, consider submitting your paper to a different journal that is a better fit for your research.

For more tips on how to publish your paper out there, check out this thread by Dr. Asad Naveed ( @dr_asadnaveed ) – and if you need a refresher on the basics of how to publish under the Open Access model, watch this 5-minute video from Audemic Academy !

Final Thoughts

Successfully understanding how to publish a research paper requires dedication, attention to detail, and a systematic approach. By following the advice in our guide, you can increase your chances of navigating the publishing process effectively and achieving your goal of publication.

Remember, the journey may involve revisions, peer feedback, and potential rejections, but each step is an opportunity for growth and improvement. Stay persistent, maintain a positive mindset, and continue to refine your research paper until it reaches the standards of your target journal. Your contribution to your wider discipline through published research will not only advance your career, but also add to the growing body of collective knowledge in your field. Embrace the challenges and rewards that come with the publication process, and may your research paper make a significant impact in your area of study!

Looking for inspiration for your next big paper? Head to Audemic , where you can organise and listen to all the best and latest research in your field!

Keep striving, researchers! ✨

Behind the Scenes: What Does a Research Assistant Do?

Have you ever wondered what goes on behind the scenes in a research lab? Does it involve acting out the whims of

How to Write a Research Paper Introduction: Hook, Line, and Sinker

Want to know how to write a research paper introduction that dazzles? Struggling to hook your reader in with your opening sentences?

Blog Podcast

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Discover more from Audemic: Access any academic research via audio

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

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

Understanding the Publishing Process

What’s happening with my paper? The publication process explained

The path to publication can be unsettling when you’re unsure what’s happening with your paper. Learn about staple journal workflows to see the detailed steps required for ensuring a rigorous and ethical publication.

Your team has prepared the paper, written a cover letter and completed the submission form. From here, it can sometimes feel like a waiting game while the journal has your paper. It can be unclear exactly who is currently handling your paper as most individuals are only involved in a few steps of the overall process. Journals are responsible for overseeing the peer review, publication and archival process: editors, reviewers, technical editors, production staff and other internal staff all have their roles in ensuring submissions meet rigorous scientific and ethical reporting standards.

Read on for an inside look at how a conventional peer-reviewed journal helps authors transform their initial submission to a certified publication.

Note that the description below is based on the process at PLOS journals. It is likely that at other journals, various roles (e.g. technical editor) may in fact also be played by the editor, and some journals may not have journal staff at all, with all roles played by volunteer academics. As such, please consider the processes and waypoints, rather than who performs them, as the key information.

Internal Checks on New Submissions

Estimated time: 10 days.

When a journal first receives your submission, there are typically two separate checks to confirm that the paper is appropriate and ready for peer review:

Technical check. Performed by a technical editor to ensure that the submission has been properly completed and is ready for further assessment. Blurry figures, missing ethical statements, and incomplete author affiliations are common issues that are addressed at this initial stage. Typically, there are three technical checks: upon initial submission, alongside the first decision letter, and upon acceptance.
Editorial screening . Once a paper passes the first check, an editor with subject expertise assesses the paper and determines whether it is within the journal’s scope and if it could potentially meet the required publication criteria. While there may be requests for further information and minor edits from the author as needed, the paper will either be desk rejected by the editor or allowed to proceed to peer review.

Both editors at this point will additionally make notes for items to be followed-up on at later stages. The publication process involves finding a careful balance for when each check occurs. Early checks need to be thorough so that editors with relevant expertise can focus on the scientific content and more advanced reporting standards, but no one wants to be asked to reformat references only to have their paper desk rejected a few days later.

Peer Review

Estimated time: 1 month.

Depending on the journal’s editorial structure, the editor who performed the initial assessment may also oversee peer review or another editor with more specific expertise may be assigned. Regardless of the journal’s specific process, the various roles and responsibilities during peer review include:

When you have questions or are unsure who your manuscripts is currently with, reach out to the journal staff for help (eg. [email protected]). They will be your lifeline, connecting you to all the other contributors working to assess the manuscript.

Whether an editor needs a reminder that all reviews are complete or a reviewer has asked for an extension, the journal acts as a central hub of communication for those involved with the publication process. As editors and reviewers are used to hearing from journal staff about their duties, any messages you send to the journal can be forwarded to them with proper context and instructions on how to proceed appropriately. Additionally, journal staff will be able to inform you of any delays, such as reviewer availability during summer and holiday periods.

Revision Decision

Estimated time: 1 day.

Editors evaluate peer reviewer feedback and their own expert assessment of the manuscript to reach a decision. After your editor submits a decision on your manuscript, the journal may review it before formally processing the decision and sending it on to you.

A technical editor may scan the manuscript and the review comments to ensure that journal standards have been followed. At this stage, the technical editor will also add requests to ensure the paper, if published, will adhere to journal requirements for data sharing, copyright, ethical reporting and the like.

Performing the second technical check at this stage and adding the journal requirements to the decision letter ultimately saves time by allowing authors to resolve the journal’s queries while making revisions based on comments from the reviewers.

Revised Submission Received

Estimated time: 3 days.

Upon receiving your revised submission, a technical editor will assess the revisions to confirm that the requests from the journal have been properly addressed. Before the paper is returned to the editor for their consideration, the journal needs to be confident that the paper won’t have any issues related to the metadata and reporting standards that could prevent publication. The editor may contact you to resolve any serious issues, though minor items can wait until the paper is accepted.

Subsequent Peer Review

Estimated time: 2 weeks, highly variable.

When your resubmitted paper has passed the required checks, it’ll be assigned back to the same editor who handled it during the first round of peer review. At this point, your paper has gone through two sets of journal checks and one round of peer review. If all has gone well so far, the paper should feel quite solid both in terms of scientific content and proper reporting standards.

When the editor receives your revised paper, they are asked to check if all reviewer comments have been adequately addressed and if the paper now adheres to the journal’s publication criteria. Depending on the situation, some editors may feel confident making this decision based on their own expertise while others may re-invite the previous reviewers for their opinions.

Individual responsibilities are the same as the initial round of peer review, but it is generally expected that later stages of peer review proceed quicker unless new concerns have been introduced as part of the revision.

Preliminary Acceptance

Estimated time: 1 week.

Your editor is satisfied with the scientific quality of your work and has chosen to accept it in principle. Before it can proceed to production and typesetting, the journal office will perform it’s third and final technical check, requesting any formatting changes or additional details that may be required.

When fulfilling these final journal requests, double check the final files to confirm all information is correct. If you need to make changes beyond those specifically required in the decision letter, inform the journal and explain why you made the unrequested changes. Any change that could affect the scientific meaning of the work will need to be approved by the handling editor. While including your rationale for the changes will help avoid delays, if there are extensive changes made at this point the paper may need to go through another round of formal review.

Formal Acceptance and Publication

Estimated time: 2 weeks.

After a technical editor has confirmed that all requests from the provisional acceptance letter have been addressed, you will receive your formal acceptance letter. This letter indicates that your paper is being passed from the Editorial department to the production department—that all information has been editorially approved. The scientific content has been approved through peer review, and the journal’s publication requirements have been met.

Congratulations to you and your co-authors! Your article will be available as soon as the journal transforms the submission into a typeset, consistently structured scientific manuscript, ready to be read and cited by your peers.

The contents of the Peer Review Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

The contents of the Writing Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

There’s a lot to consider when deciding where to submit your work. Learn how to choose a journal that will help your study reach its audience, while reflecting your values as a researcher…

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

Open access
Published: 30 April 2020
Volume 36 , pages 909–913, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

Clara Busse ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0178-1000 1 &
Ella August ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5151-1036 1 , 2

272k Accesses

15 Citations

721 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Communicating research findings is an essential step in the research process. Often, peer-reviewed journals are the forum for such communication, yet many researchers are never taught how to write a publishable scientific paper. In this article, we explain the basic structure of a scientific paper and describe the information that should be included in each section. We also identify common pitfalls for each section and recommend strategies to avoid them. Further, we give advice about target journal selection and authorship. In the online resource 1 , we provide an example of a high-quality scientific paper, with annotations identifying the elements we describe in this article.

Literature reviews as independent studies: guidelines for academic practice

How to design bibliometric research: an overview and a framework proposal

Plagiarism in research

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Writing a scientific paper is an important component of the research process, yet researchers often receive little formal training in scientific writing. This is especially true in low-resource settings. In this article, we explain why choosing a target journal is important, give advice about authorship, provide a basic structure for writing each section of a scientific paper, and describe common pitfalls and recommendations for each section. In the online resource 1 , we also include an annotated journal article that identifies the key elements and writing approaches that we detail here. Before you begin your research, make sure you have ethical clearance from all relevant ethical review boards.

Select a Target Journal Early in the Writing Process

We recommend that you select a “target journal” early in the writing process; a “target journal” is the journal to which you plan to submit your paper. Each journal has a set of core readers and you should tailor your writing to this readership. For example, if you plan to submit a manuscript about vaping during pregnancy to a pregnancy-focused journal, you will need to explain what vaping is because readers of this journal may not have a background in this topic. However, if you were to submit that same article to a tobacco journal, you would not need to provide as much background information about vaping.

Information about a journal’s core readership can be found on its website, usually in a section called “About this journal” or something similar. For example, the Journal of Cancer Education presents such information on the “Aims and Scope” page of its website, which can be found here: https://www.springer.com/journal/13187/aims-and-scope .

Peer reviewer guidelines from your target journal are an additional resource that can help you tailor your writing to the journal and provide additional advice about crafting an effective article [ 1 ]. These are not always available, but it is worth a quick web search to find out.

Identify Author Roles Early in the Process

Early in the writing process, identify authors, determine the order of authors, and discuss the responsibilities of each author. Standard author responsibilities have been identified by The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) [ 2 ]. To set clear expectations about each team member’s responsibilities and prevent errors in communication, we also suggest outlining more detailed roles, such as who will draft each section of the manuscript, write the abstract, submit the paper electronically, serve as corresponding author, and write the cover letter. It is best to formalize this agreement in writing after discussing it, circulating the document to the author team for approval. We suggest creating a title page on which all authors are listed in the agreed-upon order. It may be necessary to adjust authorship roles and order during the development of the paper. If a new author order is agreed upon, be sure to update the title page in the manuscript draft.

In the case where multiple papers will result from a single study, authors should discuss who will author each paper. Additionally, authors should agree on a deadline for each paper and the lead author should take responsibility for producing an initial draft by this deadline.

Structure of the Introduction Section

The introduction section should be approximately three to five paragraphs in length. Look at examples from your target journal to decide the appropriate length. This section should include the elements shown in Fig. 1 . Begin with a general context, narrowing to the specific focus of the paper. Include five main elements: why your research is important, what is already known about the topic, the “gap” or what is not yet known about the topic, why it is important to learn the new information that your research adds, and the specific research aim(s) that your paper addresses. Your research aim should address the gap you identified. Be sure to add enough background information to enable readers to understand your study. Table 1 provides common introduction section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

The main elements of the introduction section of an original research article. Often, the elements overlap

Methods Section

The purpose of the methods section is twofold: to explain how the study was done in enough detail to enable its replication and to provide enough contextual detail to enable readers to understand and interpret the results. In general, the essential elements of a methods section are the following: a description of the setting and participants, the study design and timing, the recruitment and sampling, the data collection process, the dataset, the dependent and independent variables, the covariates, the analytic approach for each research objective, and the ethical approval. The hallmark of an exemplary methods section is the justification of why each method was used. Table 2 provides common methods section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

Results Section

The focus of the results section should be associations, or lack thereof, rather than statistical tests. Two considerations should guide your writing here. First, the results should present answers to each part of the research aim. Second, return to the methods section to ensure that the analysis and variables for each result have been explained.

Begin the results section by describing the number of participants in the final sample and details such as the number who were approached to participate, the proportion who were eligible and who enrolled, and the number of participants who dropped out. The next part of the results should describe the participant characteristics. After that, you may organize your results by the aim or by putting the most exciting results first. Do not forget to report your non-significant associations. These are still findings.

Tables and figures capture the reader’s attention and efficiently communicate your main findings [ 3 ]. Each table and figure should have a clear message and should complement, rather than repeat, the text. Tables and figures should communicate all salient details necessary for a reader to understand the findings without consulting the text. Include information on comparisons and tests, as well as information about the sample and timing of the study in the title, legend, or in a footnote. Note that figures are often more visually interesting than tables, so if it is feasible to make a figure, make a figure. To avoid confusing the reader, either avoid abbreviations in tables and figures, or define them in a footnote. Note that there should not be citations in the results section and you should not interpret results here. Table 3 provides common results section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

Discussion Section

Opposite the introduction section, the discussion should take the form of a right-side-up triangle beginning with interpretation of your results and moving to general implications (Fig. 2 ). This section typically begins with a restatement of the main findings, which can usually be accomplished with a few carefully-crafted sentences.

Major elements of the discussion section of an original research article. Often, the elements overlap

Next, interpret the meaning or explain the significance of your results, lifting the reader’s gaze from the study’s specific findings to more general applications. Then, compare these study findings with other research. Are these findings in agreement or disagreement with those from other studies? Does this study impart additional nuance to well-accepted theories? Situate your findings within the broader context of scientific literature, then explain the pathways or mechanisms that might give rise to, or explain, the results.

Journals vary in their approach to strengths and limitations sections: some are embedded paragraphs within the discussion section, while some mandate separate section headings. Keep in mind that every study has strengths and limitations. Candidly reporting yours helps readers to correctly interpret your research findings.

The next element of the discussion is a summary of the potential impacts and applications of the research. Should these results be used to optimally design an intervention? Does the work have implications for clinical protocols or public policy? These considerations will help the reader to further grasp the possible impacts of the presented work.

Finally, the discussion should conclude with specific suggestions for future work. Here, you have an opportunity to illuminate specific gaps in the literature that compel further study. Avoid the phrase “future research is necessary” because the recommendation is too general to be helpful to readers. Instead, provide substantive and specific recommendations for future studies. Table 4 provides common discussion section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

Follow the Journal’s Author Guidelines

After you select a target journal, identify the journal’s author guidelines to guide the formatting of your manuscript and references. Author guidelines will often (but not always) include instructions for titles, cover letters, and other components of a manuscript submission. Read the guidelines carefully. If you do not follow the guidelines, your article will be sent back to you.

Finally, do not submit your paper to more than one journal at a time. Even if this is not explicitly stated in the author guidelines of your target journal, it is considered inappropriate and unprofessional.

Your title should invite readers to continue reading beyond the first page [ 4 , 5 ]. It should be informative and interesting. Consider describing the independent and dependent variables, the population and setting, the study design, the timing, and even the main result in your title. Because the focus of the paper can change as you write and revise, we recommend you wait until you have finished writing your paper before composing the title.

Be sure that the title is useful for potential readers searching for your topic. The keywords you select should complement those in your title to maximize the likelihood that a researcher will find your paper through a database search. Avoid using abbreviations in your title unless they are very well known, such as SNP, because it is more likely that someone will use a complete word rather than an abbreviation as a search term to help readers find your paper.

After you have written a complete draft, use the checklist (Fig. 3 ) below to guide your revisions and editing. Additional resources are available on writing the abstract and citing references [ 5 ]. When you feel that your work is ready, ask a trusted colleague or two to read the work and provide informal feedback. The box below provides a checklist that summarizes the key points offered in this article.

Checklist for manuscript quality

Data Availability

Michalek AM (2014) Down the rabbit hole…advice to reviewers. J Cancer Educ 29:4–5

Article Google Scholar

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Defining the role of authors and contributors: who is an author? http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authosrs-and-contributors.html . Accessed 15 January, 2020

Vetto JT (2014) Short and sweet: a short course on concise medical writing. J Cancer Educ 29(1):194–195

Brett M, Kording K (2017) Ten simple rules for structuring papers. PLoS ComputBiol. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005619

Lang TA (2017) Writing a better research article. J Public Health Emerg. https://doi.org/10.21037/jphe.2017.11.06

Download references

Acknowledgments

Ella August is grateful to the Sustainable Sciences Institute for mentoring her in training researchers on writing and publishing their research.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Maternal and Child Health, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, 135 Dauer Dr, 27599, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

Clara Busse & Ella August

Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan School of Public Health, 1415 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-2029, USA

Ella August

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ella August .

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interests.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

(PDF 362 kb)

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

Busse, C., August, E. How to Write and Publish a Research Paper for a Peer-Reviewed Journal. J Canc Educ 36 , 909–913 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-020-01751-z

Download citation

Published : 30 April 2020

Issue Date : October 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-020-01751-z

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

Manuscripts
Scientific writing
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

SpringerLink shop

How to publish an article? – Step by step

If you plan to submit an article to one of our journals, or have any questions during the publication process, this helpdesk will guide you through manuscript submission, production and the services you can expect after your article’s publication.

1. Before you start

The following topics will be important during the early stages of writing your article.

Publishing Ethics
Open Access
Impact Factor
Rights, permissions and licensing
Copyright and plagiarism

2. Turning your manuscript into an article

Preparation, publication.

- Find the right journal for your manuscript

- The Springer Journal Selector

- Manuscript preparation (reference styles, artwork guidelines, etc.)

3. After publication

If your article has been published, the following topics are important for you:

Abstracting & Indexing
Online access to my article
Citation Alert
Book discounts
Marketing to worldwide audiences

ScienceDirect Support Center

To post social content, you must have a display name. The page will refresh upon submission. Any pending input will be lost.

How do I publish my article with Elsevier?

Follow these steps to submit your article using our online submission system Editorial Manager:

This option may not always be available as some journals do not accept submissions.
Sign in to Editorial Manager, or register if you are a first-time user.
Follow the steps to submit your article.

Helpful tools and pages

These helpful tools and pages available can help you navigate the publication process.

Finding the right journal

Browse Calls for papers
JournalFinder

Help with submitting and tracking your article

Publishing with Elsevier: step-by-step — provides a good overview of the publication process for first-time authors.
Track your accepted article — tool to track your submitted article after it has been accepted.
Journal Article Publishing Support Center — support portal for any questions related to publishing with Elsevier (e.g., open access, publication costs, fees, submission timelines) and contact information.

Was this answer helpful?

Thank you for your feedback, it will help us serve you better. If you require assistance, please scroll down and use one of the contact options to get in touch.

Help us to help you:

Thank you for your feedback!

Why was this answer not helpful?
It was hard to understand / follow.
It did not answer my question.
The solution did not work.
There was a mistake in the answer.
Feel free to leave any comments below: Please enter your feedback to submit this form

How do I use the advanced search?
What are journal pre-proofs?
What are corrected proofs?
How do I buy an article or chapter?
What can I do on an article page?

For further assistance:

Submit your paper

Publishing with Elsevier: step-by-step

Learn about the publication process and how to submit your manuscript. This tutorial will help you find the right journal and maximize the chance to be published.

1. Find a journal

Find out the journals that could be best suited for publishing your research. Match your manuscript using the JournalFinder tool, then learn more about each journal.

JournalFinder

Powered by the Elsevier Fingerprint Engine™, Elsevier JournalFinder uses smart search technology and field-of-research-specific vocabularies to match your article to Elsevier journals.

Find out more about a journal

Learn about each journal's topics, impact and submission policies.

Find a journal by name

Read the journal's aims and scope to make sure it is a match
Check whether you can submit – some journals are invitation only
Use journal metrics to understand the impact of a journal
If available, check the journal at Journal Insights for additional info about impact, speed and reach
If you're a postdoc, check out our postdoc free access program

2. Prepare your paper for submission

Download our get published quick guide , which outlines the essential steps in preparing a paper. (This is also available in Chinese ). It is very important that you stick to the specific "guide for authors" of the journal to which you are submitting. This can be found on the journal's home page.

You can find information about the publishing process in the understanding the publishing process guide. It covers topics such as authors' rights, ethics and plagiarism, and journal and article metrics.

If you have research data to share, make sure you read the guide for authors to find out which options the journal offers to share research data with your article.

3. Submit and revise

You can submit to most Elsevier journals using our online systems. The system you use will depend on the journal to which you submit. You can access the relevant submission system via the "submit your paper" link on the Elsevier.com journal homepage of your chosen journal.

Alternatively, if you have been invited to submit to a journal, follow the instructions provided to you.

Once submitted, your paper will be considered by the editor and if it passes initial screening, it will be sent for peer review by experts in your field. If deemed unsuitable for publication in your chosen journal, the editor may suggest you transfer your submission to a more suitable journal, via an article transfer service.

4. Track your paper

Track your submitted paper.

You can track the status of your submitted paper online. The system you use to track your submission will be the same system to which you submitted. Use the reference number you received after submission to track your submission.

Unsure about what the submission status means? Check out this video .

In case of any problems contact the Support Center

Track your accepted paper

Once your paper is accepted for publication, you will receive a reference number and a direct link that lets you follow its publication status via Elsevier’s "Track Your Accepted Article" service.

However, even without a notification you can track the status of your article by entering your article reference number and corresponding author surname in Track Your Accepted Article .

Read more about the article tracking service

5. Share and promote

Now that your article is published, you can promote it to achieve a bigger impact for your research. Sharing research, accomplishments and ambitions with a wider audience makes you more visible in your field. This helps you get cited more, enabling you to cultivate a stronger reputation, promote your research and move forward in your career.

Read more on sharing your research After publication, celebrate and get noticed!

Elsevier.com visitor survey

We are always looking for ways to improve customer experience on Elsevier.com. We would like to ask you for a moment of your time to fill in a short questionnaire, at the end of your visit . If you decide to participate, a new browser tab will open so you can complete the survey after you have completed your visit to this website. Thanks in advance for your time.

Guide to Getting Published in Journals

Why publish in journals?
Identifying potential journals
Creating a journal comparison spreadsheet
Aims & Scope
Editorial Board
How different journals approach peer review
Different open access models
Interpreting traditional metrics like the Impact Factor
Alternative metrics
Ethics and malpractice statements
Recognising and avoiding predatory journals
Instructions for authors
Submitting your paper

Introduction

You have worked through your list of journals, investigating all your criteria and found the journal that is best suited to your paper and the goals you have for it. It is now time for you to submit!

In this section, we will prepare you for what to expect when submitting to a journal, give some insights into the peer review process, how to respond to requests for revisions and resubmit a paper, and what steps to take should you receive a rejection decision.

Submitting a paper

Make sure you have prepared your paper according to the instructions for authors . Double-check the journal’s requirements with your article to be certain.

If you need to include a cover letter with your submission, you should address the editor by formal name (e.g. Dear Professor Name---) and include the name of the journal but make sure you use the correct one (especially if this is your second-choice journal)!

In the letter, explain why your article is suitable for that journal and how your paper will contribute to furthering its aims & scope. Pitch the value of your article, describing the main theme, the contribution your paper makes to existing knowledge, and its relationship to any relevant articles published in the journal. You should not repeat the abstract in the letter. Include information not typically mentioned in a manuscript.

You may also be requested by the journal to suggest some reviewers for your paper. Good sources for these include authors cited in your references and editorial board members from the journal, or from other journals in the field. You should not suggest anyone that you would have a conflict of interest with, such as co-workers.

You should also make some formal declarations regarding the originality of your work, that you have no conflicts of interest, and that all co-authors (if you have any) agree to the submission.

The review process

As we discussed in the earlier module on peer review , there are a wide range of timeframes over which your review process may be conducted.

It may take several months for the journal to complete the review process, which typically involves:

Reading the article and deciding whether to send it for review.
Acquiring sufficient reviewers and receiving all feedback.
Assessing the reviews and rendering a decision on the paper.

Acquiring reviewers and then receiving those reviews back is the longest part of the process. It is very much dependent on the availability of academics, and is not an especially predictable process.

Journals which use web-based reviewing platforms often feature a status for each submission that authors can check. If this status has not changed for some time, in most cases, you will be able to send the journal administrator or editor an email. Some journals make their review times publicly available, giving you a good idea of how long their process might take, and when it may be appropriate to ask for an update. If you do not know what to expect, we suggest waiting around 2 months before asking for an update.

Desk reject

Hopefully you will have submitted your article to the perfect journal, exactly as they have requested, and your article will be sent for reviewing. However, some papers are rejected without being sent for peer review – this is commonly known as a desk reject – and of course, you want to avoid this happening to your paper.

To help you understand and minimise the risk, here are some of the most common reasons for desk rejection:

TECHNICAL SCREENING

Language or writing issues which make it too hard for the editor to understand the paper.
Similarity checking revealing a large amount of exact matching or plagiarised content.
Formatting is not in the journal style
Word count is too high
Figures & Tables are incomplete or difficult to read
References are incomplete

AIMS & SCOPE AND CONTENT

Outside Aims & Scope.
Hypothesis or purpose is not sufficiently clear.
Methods are unclear or flawed.
Results do not support conclusions.
Incremental addition to knowledge.
References miss key or recent literature.

Similarity (plagarism) checking

Many journals conduct some form of checking of article text to go alongside the reviewing of papers. Software such as iThenticate, Turnitin, PlagScan, among many others, are used either to look for similarities in text between the submitted article and published material available online.

These platforms cannot, by themselves, determine whether text has been plagiarised, only provide a score of how similar passages of text are to existing material. For this reason, these programs tend to be referred to as ‘similarity checker’, not ‘plagiarism checker’.

Papers which are processed and return high scores are likely to be investigated to determine whether the similarity does appear to be deliberate plagiarism. How a journal deals with such a paper depends on their own policies and procedures, and the extent of the plagiarism detected.

Many journals will refer to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Guidelines and Flowchart for dealing with “Suspected plagiarism in a submitted manuscript”. See our module on Ethics and Malpractice Statements for more detail on COPE and journal ethics.

These similarity checking programs may be used at different stages of the process, depending on journal policy and situation. Some journals may screen all papers on submission, some only when some concerns are raised by the editor on first read or by referees during review.

Receiving a decision after peer review

Once the editor has received all comments, feedback and recommendations from the reviewers, they will make a decision on the paper. These decisions may be called by different terms, but will usually fit into one of four categories:

Accept – it is very rare than a first submission will be accepted outright, without any changes being requested.
Revisions likely to result in acceptance – This can be a ‘minor revisions’ decision, or a more major revision, but in both cases the editor shows positivity towards a final acceptance.
Revisions with an uncertain outcome – Often referred to as ‘major revisions’, or ‘reject, revise and resubmit’, these decisions request extensive revisions, reinterpretations of information, or deeper, more thorough explanations of details, which ultimately may not be acceptable for the journal even when responses to all reviewer comments have been provided.
Reject – The paper is unsuitable and/or unacceptable for the journal in this form, or any alternate version. With a reject decision, a revision is not invited, and should an author resubmit the paper as a new version, it may be immediately rejected.

If you are invited to revise your paper, make sure you are methodical in your approach to tackling the revisions requested by the editor.

Read the letter and put it aside for a day or two. However well-framed the reviewer’s comments and criticisms of your paper, there is always a chance you may feel protective over the original paper you spent so much time writing. It is not always easy to receive criticism, so don’t rush to take action immediately. Give yourself a few days to digest the reviewer comments before taking the next steps with your revision.
In most cases, it is likely that you will be able to follow the recommendations of the reviewers.
Organising the reviewer comments by ease of response or your ability to complete. For example, on a spectrum of requested revisions, spelling and grammar corrections would be at the easiest end, through to conducting extra experiments at the more difficult (or impossible) end.
Numbering each of the comments from each reviewer.
Taking a structured approach to revisions will also make it easier to respond. You will need to include a point-by-point response letter, detailing how you have addressed each reviewer point. You do not need to perform every change requested of the reviewers, but you should provide a response as to why you have not done so. It may be that reviewers request conflicting things, or the additional experiments they suggest are not possible.
If you disagree with a comment made by one of the reviewers, try to provide an evidence-based explanation in your response.
Try to complete your revisions by the requested deadline. If you think you will need longer, let the journal know. They will probably be happy to grant you the extension, and it is courteous to keep them updated. In addition, some online review platforms may prevent you from submitting your revision once the due date expires, so asking for an extension will avoid this problem too.
Once your revisions are complete and you have detailed all your responses in your letter, check with any co-authors that they are all happy with the final versions before re-submitting to the journal.
For journals with online submission forms, be sure to submit as the revision of your original article so that it is easy for the editorial office and Editor to follow. Amend any relevant fields (such as title, abstract) that have changed during your revision process, provide related cover letters, revised manuscript files and reviewer response letter in the appropriate places in the forms.
Revisions may be sent to the previous reviewers to re-assess, or the Editor may make a decision independently. In some cases, new reviewers may be sought. As with the first submission, once all reviews have been submitted, the Editor will make a decision from the same set of categories and hopefully your paper will be accepted in just one or two rounds of resubmission. Some very strict journals will not invite a second speculative revision, but others may be more lenient and continue to invite revisions until the editor is satisfied of a decision to either Accept or Reject.

Having a submission rejected from your first-choice journal is something of an inevitability - every researcher has been rejected at some point in their careers. Even some of what we now consider ground-breaking and foundational studies were rejected from their first-choice journals. Hans Krebs' paper on citric acid cycle - the Krebs cycle – was rejected from Nature in 1937, and Kary Mullis’ first paper on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was rejected from Science in 1993, before going on to win the Nobel Prize. Rejection happens, quite literally, to the best of us.

If this should happen to you, try not be too disappointed. It does not mean there is no future for your paper. As with our revision recommendation, set aside the letter once you have read it and give yourself some time before tackling it.

When you are ready to proceed with your paper, consider the following steps:

From your shortlist of suitable journals for your paper, you might now consider your second-choice journal.
Another option to consider may be ‘Cascade Journals’. Some publishers now offer a chance to publish in a ‘Cascade journal’. These are usually open access titles, published by the same organisation. Some Cascade journals will require payment of an Article Processing Charge (APC). You may or may not be offered a reduced rate as part of the transfer to the related title. It is likely that the journal will transfer the reviews received at your first-choice journal to the ‘cascade journal’. This is intended to speed up the review process, or may mean the editor does not have to conduct any reviewing at all, but it does not guarantee acceptance at this journal. The editor will still need to make a decision as to whether your paper is suitable for the journal.
Firstly, it is likely that the comments the reviewers provided will help you improve aspects of your paper such as focusing the aims and purpose of your paper, sharpening the inferences made from your results, fine tuning the message you wish to convey, or improving the readability among many other positive edits.
Secondly, even in reasonably large research fields, there is a chance that the same reviewers who saw your paper at the first journal will be asked to review it at the new journal. It will not reflect favourably on you if you have not acknowledged or considered any of their comments from the first round of reviews.

When submitting the new version of your paper to your second journal, there is no need to include a letter responding to the original reviewers’ comments.

Check that the format of your paper meets the submission criteria of the new journal and make the appropriate amendments (remember, failure to comply with a journals Instructions For Authors is one of the most common causes of immediate rejection).
If you wish, write a cover letter to the new journal, explaining the relevance of your paper to the journal, and be sure to address the correct journal editor and journal name.
Complete your new submission to the journal.

After acceptance, you will usually be required to sign copyright or licensing documents, to give the publisher the rights to publish your article. Be sure to read these documents thoroughly to understand what you are signing.

If you would like to publish your article Open Access, Article Processing Charges are usually requested at this stage, and go hand-in-hand with the license you select, if such options are available.

Accepted papers are usually sent to a production team to format into journal style. Some have dedicated professional typesetters, copyeditors and proof-readers. For some journals, the Editors may contribute to these roles.

Some journals publish the Accepted version online within just a few days, to make it officially available before the final ‘Version of Record’ journal-styled PDF is made available.

Some journals publish articles online as soon as they are ready, into a queue of early publication manuscripts. Other journals hold all articles offline until each issue is full and publish each issue according to a defined schedule (for example, 4 times per year).

There are many different ways in which publishers and journals manage their post-acceptance stages and publication schedules. If the information about your article is not provided to you, you may contact the journal office for an update.

These are some of the more common processes and procedures that you will encounter and come to rely on throughout your research publishing career, but there may be many more variations to deal with. The submission process can be a time-consuming, frustrating experience, but with these tips, and building up your own repertoire of tools, resources and techniques, you will soon master the arts of submission and peer review.

Good luck with all your future submissions!

Further resources

Hervé Stolowy (2017) Letter from the Editor: Why Are Papers Desk Rejected at European Accounting Review? , European Accounting Review, 26:3, 411-418

<< Previous: Instructions for authors
Last Updated: Sep 18, 2023 1:28 PM
URL: https://ifis.libguides.com/journal-publishing-guide

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
J Hum Reprod Sci
v.10(1); Jan-Mar 2017

Preparing and Publishing a Scientific Manuscript

Padma r. jirge.

Department of Reproductive Medicine, Sushrut Assisted Conception Clinic Shreyas Hospital, Kolhapur, Maharashtra, India

Publishing original research in a peer-reviewed and indexed journal is an important milestone for a scientist or a clinician. It is an important parameter to assess academic achievements. However, technical and language barriers may prevent many enthusiasts from ever publishing. This review highlights the important preparatory steps for creating a good manuscript and the most widely used IMRaD (Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, and Discussion) method for writing a good manuscript. It also provides a brief overview of the submission and review process of a manuscript for publishing in a biomedical journal.

B ACKGROUND

T he publication of original research in a peer-reviewed and indexed journal is the ultimate and most important step toward the recognition of any scientific work. However, the process starts long before the write-up of a manuscript. The journal in which the author wishes to publish his/her work should be chosen at the time of conceptualization of the scientific work based on the expected readership.

The journals do provide information on the “scope of the journal,” which specifies the scientific areas relevant for publication in the journal, and “instructions to authors,” which need to be adhered to while preparing a manuscript.

The publication of scientific work has become mandatory for scientists or specialists holding academic affiliations, and it is now desirable even at an undergraduate level. Despite a plethora of forums for presenting the original research work, very little of it ever gets published in a scientific journal, and even if it does, the manuscripts are usually from the same few institutions.[ 1 , 2 ] It serves the purpose of academic recognition; and certain publications may even contribute to shaping various national policies. An academic appointment, suitable infrastructure, and access to peer-reviewed journals are considered as the facilitators for publishing.[ 3 ]

The lack of technical and writing skills, institutional hurdles, and time constraints are considered as the major hurdles for any scientific publication.[ 3 ] In addition, the majority of clinicians in India are involved in providing healthcare in the private sector in individually owned hospitals or those governed by small groups of doctors. This necessitates performing a multitude of tasks apart from providing core clinical care and, hence, poses an additional limiting factor because of the long and irregular working hours.

It is extremely challenging to dedicate some time for research and writing in such a scenario. However, it is a loss to science if this group of skilled clinicians does not contribute to medical literature.

Maintaining the ethics and science of research and understanding the norms of preparing a manuscript are very important in improving the quality and relevance of clinical research in our country. This article brings together various aspects to be borne in mind while creating a manuscript suitable for publication. The inputs provided are relevant to all those interested, irrespective of whether they have an academic or institutional affiliation. While the prospect of becoming an author of a published scientific work is exciting, it is important to be prepared for minor or major revisions in the original article and even rejection. However, persevering in this endeavor may help preserving one’s work and contribute to the promotion of science.[ 4 , 5 ]

Important considerations for writing a manuscript include the following:

(1) Conceptualization of a clinically relevant scientific work.
(2) Choosing an appropriate journal and an alternative one.
(3) Familiarizing with instructions to authors.
(4) Coordination and well-defined task delegation within the team and involvement of a biostatistician from the conception of the study.
(5) Preparing a skeletal framework for writing the manuscript.
(6) Delegating time for thinking and writing at regular intervals.

S TEPS I NVOLVED IN M ANUSCRIPT P REPARATION

A manuscript should both be informative and readable. Even though the concept is clear in the authors’ mind, it is important to remember that they are introducing some new work for the readers, and, hence, appropriate organization of the manuscript is necessary to make the purpose and importance of the work clear to the readers.

(1) Choosing the appropriate journal for publication : The preferred choice of journal should be one of the first steps to be considered, as mentioned earlier. The guidelines for authors may change with time and, hence, should be referred to at regular intervals and conformed to. The choice of journal principally depends on the target readers, and it may be necessary to have one or more journals in mind in case of nonacceptance from the journal of first choice. A journal’s impact factor is to be considered while choosing an appropriate journal.

Majority of the biomedical journals with good impact factor have specific authorship criteria.[ 8 ] This prevents problems related to ghost authorship and honorary authorship. Ghost authorship refers to a scenario wherein an author’s name is omitted to hide financial relationships with private companies; honorary authorship is naming someone who has not made substantial contribution to the work, either due to pressure from colleagues or to improve the chances of publication.[ 9 ]

Most of the journals conform to the authorship criteria defined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.[ 10 ] They are listed as the following:

Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; ANDDrafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; ANDFinal approval of the version to be published; ANDAgreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Some journals require authors to declare their contributions to the research work and manuscript preparation. This helps to prevent honorary and ghost authorship and encourages authors to be more honest and accountable.[ 11 ]

Keywords : are mentioned at the bottom of the Abstract section. These words denote the important aspects of the manuscript and help identify the manuscripts by electronic search engines. Most of the journals specify the number of keywords required, usually between 4 and 8. They need to be simple and specific to the manuscript; a good title contains majority of the keywords.

The general flow of the manuscript follows an IMRaD (Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, and Discussion) structure. Even though this has been recommended since the early 20 th century, most of the authors started following it since the 1970s.[ 13 ]

Important components of the Introduction section

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is JHRS-10-3-g001.jpg

A common error while writing an introduction is an attempt to review the entire evidence available on the topic. This becomes confusing to the reader, and the purpose and importance of the study in question gets submerged in the plethora of information provided. Issues mentioned in the Introduction section will need to be addressed in the Discussion section, and it is important to avoid repetitions and overlapping. Some may prefer to write the Introduction section after preparing the draft of the Materials and Methods and Results sections.

The last paragraph in the Introduction section defines the aim of the study or the study question using active verbs. If there is more than one aim for the study, specify the primary aim and address the secondary aims in a separate sentence. It is recommended that the Introduction section should not occupy more than 10–15% of the entire text.[ 14 ]

This is followed by a detailed description of the study protocol. At times, some of the methods used may be very elaborate and not very relevant to majority of the readers, for example, if polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is used for diagnosis, the type of PCR performed should be mentioned in this section, but the entire procedure need not be elaborated in the “methods” section. Either a relevant reference can be provided or the procedural details can be given online as supplemental data.

It is important to mention both the generic and brand names of all the drugs used along with the name of the manufacturer and the place of manufacturing. Similarly, all the hematological, biochemical, hormonal assays, and radiological investigations performed should provide the specifications of the equipment used and its manufacturer’s details. For many biochemical and endocrine parameters, it is preferred that the intra- and interassay coefficients of variation are provided. In addition, the standard units of measurements and the internationally accepted abbreviations should be used.[ 18 ]

There are online guidelines available to maintain uniformity in reporting the different types of studies such as Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) for randomized controlled trials, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) for observational studies, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for systematic reviews.[ 19 ] Adherence to these guidelines improves the clarity and completeness of reporting.

Statistical analysis : One of the most important deterrents for publishing clinical research is the inability to choose and perform appropriate statistical analysis. With the availability of various user-friendly software systems, an increasing number of the researchers are comfortable performing complex analyses without additional assistance. However, it is still a common practice to involve biostatisticians for this purpose. Coordination between the clinicians and biostatisticians is very important for sample size calculation, creation of a proper data set, and its subsequent analysis. It is important to use the appropriate statistical methodologies for a more complete representation of the data to improve the quality of a manuscript.[ 20 ] It may be helpful to refer to a recent review of the most widely used statistical analyses and their application in clinical research for a better data presentation.[ 20 ] There is some evidence that structured training involving data analysis, manuscript writing, and submission to indexed journals improves the quality of submitted manuscripts even in a low-resource setting.[ 21 ] Short, online certificate courses on biostatistics are available free of cost from many universities across the globe. The important aspects regarding the Materials and Methods section are summarized in Table 2 .

Important components of the Materials and Methods section

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is JHRS-10-3-g002.jpg

The results of the study are summarized in the form of tables and figures. Journals may have limitations on the number of figures and tables, as well as the rows and columns in tables. The text should only highlight the findings recorded in the tables and figures and should not repeat every detail.[ 16 ] Primary analysis should be presented in a separate paragraph. Any secondary analysis performed in view of the results seen in the primary analysis should be mentioned separately [ Table 3 ].

Important components of the Results section

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is JHRS-10-3-g003.jpg

When comparing two groups, it is a good practice to mention the data pertaining to the study group followed by that of the control group and to maintain the same order throughout the section. No adjectives should be used while comparing, except for the statistical significance of the findings. The Results section is written in the past tense, and the numerical values should be presented with a maximum of one decimal place.

Statistical significance as shown by P-value, if accompanied by odds ratio and 95% confidence interval gives important information of direction and size of treatment effect. The measures of central tendencies should be followed by the appropriate measures of variability (mean and standard deviation; median and interquartile range). Relative measures should be accompanied by absolute values (percentage and actual value).[ 22 ] The interpretation of results solely based on bar diagrams or line graphs could be misleading, and a more complete data may be presented in the form of box plots or scatter plots.[ 20 ]

The strengths and weaknesses of the study should be discussed in a separate paragraph. This makes way for implications for clinical practice and future research.[ 16 , 23 ]

The section ends with a conclusion of not more than one to two sentences. The Conclusion section summarizes the study findings in the context of evidence in the field. The important components of the Discussion section are summarized in Table 4 [ Figure 1 ].

Important components of the Discussion section

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is JHRS-10-3-g004.jpg

The hourglass structure of the Introduction and Discussion sections

A referencing tool such as EndNote™ may be used to store and organize the references. The references at the end of the manuscript need to be listed in a manner specified by the journal. The common styles used are Vancouver, Harvard, APA, etc.[ 24 ] Despite continued efforts, standardization to one global format has not yet become a reality.[ 25 ]

It is important to understand the evidence in the referenced articles to write meaningful Introduction and Discussion sections. Online search engines such as Pubmed, Medline, and Scopus are some of the sources that provide abstracts from indexed journals. However, a full-text article may not always be available unless one has subscription for the journals. Those with institutional attachments, authors, and even the research division of pharmaceutical companies may be unconventional but helpful sources for procuring full-text articles. Individual articles can be purchased from certain journals as well.

(9) Acknowledgements : This section follows the Conclusion section. People who have helped in various aspects of the concerned research work, statistical analysis, or manuscript preparation, but do not qualify to be authors for the study, are acknowledged, preferably with their academic affiliations.[ 26 ]

The aforementioned section provides the general guidelines for preparing a good manuscript. However, an exhaustive list of available guidelines and other resources to facilitate good research reporting are provided by the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research network ( http://www.equator-network.org ).

A DDITIONAL F ACTORS I NFLUENCING THE M ANUSCRIPT Q UALITY

(1) Plagiarism : Plagiarism is a serious threat to scientific publications and is described by the office of Research Integrity as “theft or misappropriation of intellectual property and the substantial unattributed textual copying of another’s work and the representation of them as one’s own original work.” The primary responsibility of preventing plagiarism lies with the authors. It is important to develop the skill of writing any manuscript in one’s own words and when quoting available evidence, substantiate with appropriate references. However, the use of plagiarism detection tools and a critical analysis by the editorial team prior to submitting an article for peer review are also equally important to prevent this menace.[ 29 ] The consequences of plagiarism could range from disciplinary charges such as retraction of the article to criminal charges.[ 30 ]
(2) Language : One of the important limitations to publication is the problem of writing in English. This can be minimized by seeking help from colleagues or using the language editing service provided by many of the journals.
(3) Professional medical writing support : In recent years, it is acknowledged that the lack of time and linguistic constraints prevent some of the good work from being published. Hence, the role of professional medical writing support is being critically evaluated. Declared professional medical writing support is found to be associated with more complete reporting of clinical trial results and higher quality of written English. Medical writing support may play an important role in raising the quality of clinical trial reporting.[ 31 ] The role of professional medical writers should be acknowledged in the Acknowledgements section.[ 32 ]

S UBMISSION TO J OURNALS AND R EVIEWING P ROCESS

The submission of manuscripts is now exclusively an online exercise. The basic model of submission in any journal comprises the following: the title file or first page file, article file, image files, videos, charts, tables, figures, and copyright/consent forms. It is important to keep all the files ready in a folder before starting the submission process. When submitting images, it is important to have good quality, well-focused images with good resolution.[ 33 ] Some journals may offer the choice of selecting preferred reviewers to the authors and hence, one must be prepared for this. Once the manuscript is submitted, the status can be periodically checked. With minor variations, a submitted article goes through the following review process: The Editor allocates it to one of the editorial team members who checks for the suitability for publication in the journal. It is checked for plagiarism as well at this stage. The article then goes for peer review to two to three reviewers. The review process may take 4–6 weeks, at the end of which, the reviewers submit their remarks, and “article decision” is made, which could be an advice for minor/major revisions, rewriting the whole manuscript for specific reasons, acceptance without any changes (very rare), or rejection. It is important to take into consideration all the comments of the reviewers and incorporate the necessary changes in the manuscript before resubmitting. However, if the manuscript is rejected, revise to incorporate the valid suggestions given by the reviewers and consider submitting to another journal in the field. This should be effected without delay overcoming the disappointment so that the research still remains valid in the context of time.

P REDATORY J OURNALS

Some of the well-known journals provide an “open access” option to the authors, wherein if the manuscript is published, it is accessible to all the readers online free of cost. However, the authors need to pay a certain fee to make their manuscript an open access article. In addition, some of the well-known journals published by reputed publishers such as BioMed Central (BMC) and Public Library of Science (PLoS) have online “open access” journals, where the manuscripts are published for a fee but are subjected to the conventional scrutiny process, and the readers can access the full-text article.[ 34 ] The Directory of Open Access Journals, http://doaj.org , is an online directory that indexes and provides access to high-quality, open access, peer-reviewed journals. However, many online open access journals are mushrooming, which provide a legitimate face for an illegitimate publication process lacking basic industry standards, sound peer review practices, and solid basis in publication ethics. Such journals are known as “predatory journals.”[ 35 ] The pressure of needing to have scientific publications and the lack of knowledge regarding predatory journals may encourage authors to submit their articles to such journals. Currently, it is not easy to identify predatory journals, and authors should seek such information proactively from mentors, journal websites, and recent and relevant published literature. In addition, editorial oversights (editors and editorial board members), peer review practices, the quality of published articles, indexing, access, citations and ethical practices are important aspects to be considered while choosing an appropriate journal.[ 36 ]

A relevant research hypothesis and research conducted within the ethical framework are of utmost importance for clinical research. The natural progression from here is the manuscript preparation, a daunting process for most of the clinicians involved in clinical research. Choosing a journal that provides an appropriate platform for the manuscript, conforming to the instructions specific for the journal, and following certain simple guidelines can result in successful preparation and publishing of scientific work. Allocating certain time at regular intervals for writing and maintaining discipline and perseverance in this regard are very important prerequisites to achieve the goal of successful publication.

Financial support and sponsorship

Conflicts of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest.

R EFERENCES

You are using an outdated browser . Please upgrade your browser today !

How to Write and Publish a Research Paper in 7 Steps

What comes next after you're done with your research? Publishing the results in a journal of course! We tell you how to present your work in the best way possible.

This post is part of a series, which serves to provide hands-on information and resources for authors and editors.

Things have gotten busy in scholarly publishing: These days, a new article gets published in the 50,000 most important peer-reviewed journals every few seconds, while each one takes on average 40 minutes to read. Hundreds of thousands of papers reach the desks of editors and reviewers worldwide each year and 50% of all submissions end up rejected at some stage.

In a nutshell: there is a lot of competition, and the people who decide upon the fate of your manuscript are short on time and overworked. But there are ways to make their lives a little easier and improve your own chances of getting your work published!

Well, it may seem obvious, but before submitting an academic paper, always make sure that it is an excellent reflection of the research you have done and that you present it in the most professional way possible. Incomplete or poorly presented manuscripts can create a great deal of frustration and annoyance for editors who probably won’t even bother wasting the time of the reviewers!

This post will discuss 7 steps to the successful publication of your research paper:

Check whether your research is publication-ready
Choose an article type
Choose a journal
Construct your paper
Decide the order of authors
Check and double-check
Submit your paper

1. Check Whether Your Research Is Publication-Ready

Should you publish your research at all?

If your work holds academic value – of course – a well-written scholarly article could open doors to your research community. However, if you are not yet sure, whether your research is ready for publication, here are some key questions to ask yourself depending on your field of expertise:

Have you done or found something new and interesting? Something unique?
Is the work directly related to a current hot topic?
Have you checked the latest results or research in the field?
Have you provided solutions to any difficult problems?
Have the findings been verified?
Have the appropriate controls been performed if required?
Are your findings comprehensive?

If the answers to all relevant questions are “yes”, you need to prepare a good, strong manuscript. Remember, a research paper is only useful if it is clearly understood, reproducible and if it is read and used .

2. Choose An Article Type

The first step is to determine which type of paper is most appropriate for your work and what you want to achieve. The following list contains the most important, usually peer-reviewed article types in the natural sciences:

Full original research papers disseminate completed research findings. On average this type of paper is 8-10 pages long, contains five figures, and 25-30 references. Full original research papers are an important part of the process when developing your career.

Review papers present a critical synthesis of a specific research topic. These papers are usually much longer than original papers and will contain numerous references. More often than not, they will be commissioned by journal editors. Reviews present an excellent way to solidify your research career.

Letters, Rapid or Short Communications are often published for the quick and early communication of significant and original advances. They are much shorter than full articles and usually limited in length by the journal. Journals specifically dedicated to short communications or letters are also published in some fields. In these the authors can present short preliminary findings before developing a full-length paper.

3. Choose a Journal

Are you looking for the right place to publish your paper? Find out here whether a De Gruyter journal might be the right fit.

Submit to journals that you already read, that you have a good feel for. If you do so, you will have a better appreciation of both its culture and the requirements of the editors and reviewers.

Other factors to consider are:

The specific subject area
The aims and scope of the journal
The type of manuscript you have written
The significance of your work
The reputation of the journal
The reputation of the editors within the community
The editorial/review and production speeds of the journal
The community served by the journal
The coverage and distribution
The accessibility ( open access vs. closed access)

4. Construct Your Paper

Each element of a paper has its purpose, so you should make these sections easy to index and search.

Don’t forget that requirements can differ highly per publication, so always make sure to apply a journal’s specific instructions – or guide – for authors to your manuscript, even to the first draft (text layout, paper citation, nomenclature, figures and table, etc.) It will save you time, and the editor’s.

Also, even in these days of Internet-based publishing, space is still at a premium, so be as concise as possible. As a good journalist would say: “Never use three words when one will do!”

Let’s look at the typical structure of a full research paper, but bear in mind certain subject disciplines may have their own specific requirements so check the instructions for authors on the journal’s home page.

4.1 The Title

It’s important to use the title to tell the reader what your paper is all about! You want to attract their attention, a bit like a newspaper headline does. Be specific and to the point. Keep it informative and concise, and avoid jargon and abbreviations (unless they are universally recognized like DNA, for example).

4.2 The Abstract

This could be termed as the “advertisement” for your article. Make it interesting and easily understood without the reader having to read the whole article. Be accurate and specific, and keep it as brief and concise as possible. Some journals (particularly in the medical fields) will ask you to structure the abstract in distinct, labeled sections, which makes it even more accessible.

A clear abstract will influence whether or not your work is considered and whether an editor should invest more time on it or send it for review.

4.3 Keywords

Keywords are used by abstracting and indexing services, such as PubMed and Web of Science. They are the labels of your manuscript, which make it “searchable” online by other researchers.

Include words or phrases (usually 4-8) that are closely related to your topic but not “too niche” for anyone to find them. Make sure to only use established abbreviations. Think about what scientific terms and its variations your potential readers are likely to use and search for. You can also do a test run of your selected keywords in one of the common academic search engines. Do similar articles to your own appear? Yes? Then that’s a good sign.

4.4 Introduction

This first part of the main text should introduce the problem, as well as any existing solutions you are aware of and the main limitations. Also, state what you hope to achieve with your research.

Do not confuse the introduction with the results, discussion or conclusion.

4.5 Methods

Every research article should include a detailed Methods section (also referred to as “Materials and Methods”) to provide the reader with enough information to be able to judge whether the study is valid and reproducible.

Include detailed information so that a knowledgeable reader can reproduce the experiment. However, use references and supplementary materials to indicate previously published procedures.

4.6 Results

In this section, you will present the essential or primary results of your study. To display them in a comprehensible way, you should use subheadings as well as illustrations such as figures, graphs, tables and photos, as appropriate.

4.7 Discussion

Here you should tell your readers what the results mean .

Do state how the results relate to the study’s aims and hypotheses and how the findings relate to those of other studies. Explain all possible interpretations of your findings and the study’s limitations.

Do not make “grand statements” that are not supported by the data. Also, do not introduce any new results or terms. Moreover, do not ignore work that conflicts or disagrees with your findings. Instead …

Be brave! Address conflicting study results and convince the reader you are the one who is correct.

4.8 Conclusion

Your conclusion isn’t just a summary of what you’ve already written. It should take your paper one step further and answer any unresolved questions.

Sum up what you have shown in your study and indicate possible applications and extensions. The main question your conclusion should answer is: What do my results mean for the research field and my community?

4.9 Acknowledgments and Ethical Statements

It is extremely important to acknowledge anyone who has helped you with your paper, including researchers who supplied materials or reagents (e.g. vectors or antibodies); and anyone who helped with the writing or English, or offered critical comments about the content.

Learn more about academic integrity in our blog post “Scholarly Publication Ethics: 4 Common Mistakes You Want To Avoid” .

Remember to state why people have been acknowledged and ask their permission . Ensure that you acknowledge sources of funding, including any grant or reference numbers.

Furthermore, if you have worked with animals or humans, you need to include information about the ethical approval of your study and, if applicable, whether informed consent was given. Also, state whether you have any competing interests regarding the study (e.g. because of financial or personal relationships.)

4.10 References

The end is in sight, but don’t relax just yet!

De facto, there are often more mistakes in the references than in any other part of the manuscript. It is also one of the most annoying and time-consuming problems for editors.

Remember to cite the main scientific publications on which your work is based. But do not inflate the manuscript with too many references. Avoid excessive – and especially unnecessary – self-citations. Also, avoid excessive citations of publications from the same institute or region.

5. Decide the Order of Authors

In the sciences, the most common way to order the names of the authors is by relative contribution.

Generally, the first author conducts and/or supervises the data analysis and the proper presentation and interpretation of the results. They put the paper together and usually submit the paper to the journal.

Co-authors make intellectual contributions to the data analysis and contribute to data interpretation. They review each paper draft. All of them must be able to present the paper and its results, as well as to defend the implications and discuss study limitations.

Do not leave out authors who should be included or add “gift authors”, i.e. authors who did not contribute significantly.

6. Check and Double-Check

As a final step before submission, ask colleagues to read your work and be constructively critical .

Make sure that the paper is appropriate for the journal – take a last look at their aims and scope. Check if all of the requirements in the instructions for authors are met.

Ensure that the cited literature is balanced. Are the aims, purpose and significance of the results clear?

Conduct a final check for language, either by a native English speaker or an editing service.

7. Submit Your Paper

When you and your co-authors have double-, triple-, quadruple-checked the manuscript: submit it via e-mail or online submission system. Along with your manuscript, submit a cover letter, which highlights the reasons why your paper would appeal to the journal and which ensures that you have received approval of all authors for submission.

It is up to the editors and the peer-reviewers now to provide you with their (ideally constructive and helpful) comments and feedback. Time to take a breather!

If the paper gets rejected, do not despair – it happens to literally everybody. If the journal suggests major or minor revisions, take the chance to provide a thorough response and make improvements as you see fit. If the paper gets accepted, congrats!

It’s now time to get writing and share your hard work – good luck!

If you are interested, check out this related blog post

[Title Image by Nick Morrison via Unsplash]

David Sleeman

David Sleeman worked as Senior Journals Manager in the field of Physical Sciences at De Gruyter.

You might also be interested in

Academia & Publishing

Library Community Gives Back: 2023 Webinar Speakers’ Charity Picks

From error to excellence: embracing mistakes in library practice, the impact of transformative agreements on scholarly publishing, visit our shop.

De Gruyter publishes over 1,300 new book titles each year and more than 750 journals in the humanities, social sciences, medicine, mathematics, engineering, computer sciences, natural sciences, and law.

Pin It on Pinterest

How to Publish a Research Article

Submit your Research
My Submissions
Article Guidelines
Article Guidelines (New Versions)
Data Guidelines
Article Processing Charges
Finding Article Reviewers
The Peer Review Process
The Editorial Team’s Role
Reviewer Criteria
Dos and Don’ts for Suggesting Reviewers
Hints and Tips for Finding Reviewers
The work is original. The article (or substantial parts of it) must not have been published previously, or be under consideration or review by another journal. Articles previously posted on a preprint server, such as arXiv, SSRN, BioRxiv, MedRxiv can be submitted for publication in Open Research Europe.
At least one author must have or previously had Horizon 2020 funding (for details, see our Publication criteria ).
The reported study meets all applicable research and publication standards . We strongly recommend that you consult our editorial policies for more detail on reporting guidelines and ethical requirements.
Where applicable, all methodological details and relevant data are made available to allow others to replicate the study, and that the article adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards. For more detail, please see our policies and Data preparation guidelines .
All authors have understood Routledge Open Research’s policies for article publication and its author-led publishing model , which requires authors to actively suggest suitable peer reviewers for their article until at least 2 reviews have been received.
Your article includes full author and affiliation information, and a conflict of interest statement.

ORCID allows identification beyond names. Globally, names can be very common, they can change, they can be transliterated into other alphabets and so reliably linking researchers with their research and organizations can be difficult - this is solved through a unique ORCID iD.
An ORCID iD also allows you to keep a constantly updated digital curriculum vitae. Individuals decide to register, which research activities to connect to their ID, which organizations to allow access, what information to make publicly available, what to share with trusted parties, and what to keep private. Individuals can control their profiles and can change these settings and permissions at any time.
we collect and store authenticated ORCID iDs for authors and reviewers
we publicly display the iDs with the iD icon for those authors and reviewers, linked to their ORCID account
we connect to the user's ORCID record and update it with new published works

Stay Informed

We'll keep you updated on any major new updates to Routledge Open Research

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here .

If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here .

You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here .

If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.

If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.

Abstract Submission Policies

Share your research with the physics community at aps meetings and events., aps membership and abstract submission eligibility, aps meeting eligibility.

You must be an APS member or member of a reciprocal society to submit an abstract. If you aren't yet a member, you can join APS . If you are a member, please log into your myAPS account to submit your abstract.

If you are an invited speaker or reciprocal society member, you do not need to be APS member to submit an abstract. However, you will need to create an APS web account .

Please review the list of reciprocal societies to learn if you are a member of a reciprocal society.

Unit meeting eligibility

Membership requirements vary when submitting an abstract to unit meetings. Please review upcoming unit meetings on the APS Calendar and the requirements detailed on the appropriate unit event website.

Verifying membership when submitting your abstract

You will need to include your APS membership ID number with your abstract submission. If you are a current member, you can find your membership ID number through your myAPS account .

After joining APS, you will receive your APS membership ID number within 24 hours. If you have joined APS but do not yet have your membership ID number, please enter "membership pending" when submitting our abstract and your membership will be verified after submission.

APS Membership will not issue membership ID numbers during the week of abstract deadlines, so please plan ahead.

Abstract deadlines

Abstracts must be submitted by the deadline to be guaranteed acceptance in the scientific program.

Meeting organizers are not obligated to include contributed abstracts submitted after the deadline.

Upcoming deadlines

Visit the meet meetings and events calendar to find upcoming meetings and submission deadlines.

Abstract submission guidelines

Please refer to the specific abstract submission instructions on the meeting or event website. In general, however, authors should:

Thoroughly review and edit their abstracts before submitting
Keep contributed abstract length within the 1,300 character limit
Add all co-authors before the submission deadline
Ensure the abstract is relevant to the topical scope of the meeting or event

When submitting your abstract, please include your preference for:

An oral or poster presentation
Your preferred presentation time and/or date
Your preferred order of presentations within a session

At their discretion, event organizers will make an effort to accommodate these scheduling preferences. However, scheduling may be affected by time and space limitations.

Editing abstracts

APS will only correct mistakes and misspellings in the author’s name or affiliation. To edit abstract content, please withdraw the original abstract and resubmit a corrected version before the abstract submission deadline.

You cannot change your abstract content after author notification have been sent to submitters.

Withdrawing abstracts

After submitting your abstract, you will receive a confirmation email with the withdrawal deadline. Abstracts can be withdrawn online before this date and will not appear in the event program. Only the abstract submitter can request to withdraw an abstract.

After the withdrawal deadline, you must contact us to withdraw an abstract submission . The abstract will still appear as "abstract withdrawn" in the printed program, if one is available for the event.

Altered or rejected abstracts

APS may alter or reject abstracts based on the appropriateness of the content for the meeting or for other reasons such as:

Excessive length
Failure to comply with style guidelines
Repeated cancellations from the submitter

Contributed abstract guidelines

Contributed abstract submission eligibility.

APS members and reciprocal society members may give one technical contributed presentation, either an oral or poster presentation, at March or April Meeting.

APS members may also submit a contributed abstract that lists a non-member as a presenter. The presenter must attend the meeting and give the presentation.

Technical and non-technical contributed submissions

For each presenting author, only one contributed oral abstract on a technical topic will be accepted into the scientific program. At our discretion, APS may accepted additional technical abstracts as poster presentations, if space is available.

An author may submit an additional oral abstract on a non-technical topic, such as education or policy, to present at a session sponsored by an APS Forum or Committee.

At the APS March and April meetings, oral presentations of contributed abstracts are given 10 minutes for presentation and two minutes for questions. Unit meeting presentation times vary.

Submitting and editing contributed abstracts

Please proofread your abstract carefully and thoroughly before submitting. APS will only correct system-generated LaTeX mistakes and misspellings in authors' names or affiliations. APS will not make additional edits, add new authors or reorder the author list.

When submitting your contributed abstract, please do not exceed 1,300 characters and please comply with the submission system style defaults—do not introduce your own formatting in the abstract.

March Meeting abstract edits

Submitters to APS March Meeting may edit abstracts in the online submission system up until the submission deadline.

Contributed abstract acceptance

If your contributed abstract is accepted, APS will notify you via email. You are responsible for confirming your session date and time and requesting changes by contacting APS Abstract Help .

Invited abstract guidelines

Invited speaker eligibility.

APS members may be invited to present a scientific abstract at March or April meeting.

Individual speakers may not be invited to speak at two consecutive meetings. That is, an invited speaker who presented at March Meeting 2023 may not present as an invited speaker at March Meeting 2024. Exceptions are made for speakers who will receive APS Prizes and Awards at the meeting.

Please review the speaker nominations instructions for more information.

In addition to their invited presentation, invited speakers may submit one contributed abstract for the scientific program. APS will communicated with invited speakers about submitting their abstracts and registering for the meeting.

Invited speakers must register to attend the meeting where they are presenting. Some invited speakers' registration fees may be sponsored by an APS unit.

Invited abstract submission instructions

Authors and collaborators.

Abstracts submitted for an invited speaker may only have that individual as the author. APS suggests that the invited speaker credit collaborating researchers in a footnote in the paper.

During the submission process, an invited speaker can add collaborators as co-authors. However, the invited speaker must give the presentation, unless a replacement speaker is agreed upon beforehand, as discussed with APS Abstract Help .

An invited paper is expected to have 30 minutes for presentation time, plus six minutes for a question and answer session.

Technical and non-technical invited submissions

If you are submitting an invited abstract, you may also submit one additional abstract of a non-technical nature, such as on education, history of physics or public policy. This abstract may be presented at a session, sponsored by an APS forum or committee , of broad concern to the physics community.

Invited abstract character limits

When submitting an invited abstract, please do not exceed the 2,000 character limit for your invited abstract text.

Withdrawing an invited abstract

If you accept an invitation to present but are later unable to do so, please contact APS Abstract Help .

Advice for abstract writing

As an initial summary of your research, your abstract and its title are your first chance to impress your audience and entice them to attend your presentation or read your paper.

When writing your abstract and title, think about your research's relevance and context. How does your research fit into the broad scope of the meeting where you will present?

Effective titles

When crafting an effective title, be sure that it:

Predicts the abstract contents
Contains important keywords
Defines the research's purpose, scope, tone and methods

Parts of an abstract

Good abstracts include many of the parts of a paper, condensed or simplified to the most essential information:

Introduction
Previous or relevant references
The goal of the project
A description of how that goal was met
Key results
Details about why your results are unique or noteworthy

Additional advice

While writing your abstract, also keep the following in mind:

Stay within the required character or word count
Use proper submission format—often LaTeX, MS Word or plain text
Ensure your abstract is understandable without reading the paper or seeing the presentation
Define acronyms and minimize jargon

Abstract helpline

If you have questions or require assistance in submitting your abstract, please contact the APS Abstract Help team.

Phone: +1 (301) 209-3290 (Monday – Friday, 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. Eastern) Email : The APS Abstract help team

Join your Society

If you embrace scientific discovery, truth and integrity, partnership, inclusion, and lifelong curiosity, this is your professional home.

Kiel Verki Esploran Paperon

Redakcia Teamo de Smodin
Ĝisdatigita: Eble 17, 2024

Plej multaj studentoj malamas verki esplorajn artikolojn. La procezo ofte povas sentiĝi longa, teda, kaj foje tute enuiga. Tamen, ĉi tiuj taskoj estas esencaj por la akademia vojaĝo de studento. Ĉu vi volas lerni kiel verki esploran artikolon, kiu kaptas la profundon de la temo kaj konservas la intereson de la leganto? Se jes, ĉi tiu gvidilo estas por vi.

Hodiaŭ, ni montros al vi kiel kunmeti bone organizitan esploran paperon por helpi vin fari la gradon. Vi povas transformi ajnan temon en konvinkan esploran paperon kun pripensema aliro al via esplorado kaj persvada argumento.

En ĉi tiu gvidilo, ni provizos sep simplajn sed praktikajn konsiletojn por helpi senmistifiki la procezon kaj gvidi vin sur via vojo. Ni ankaŭ klarigos kiel AI-iloj povas akceli la esploradon kaj skriban procezon por ke vi povu koncentriĝi pri kritika pensado.

Antaŭ la fino de ĉi tiu artikolo, vi havos klaran vojmapon por trakti ĉi tiujn eseojn. Vi ankaŭ lernos kiel trakti ilin rapide kaj efike. Kun tempo kaj sindediĉo, vi baldaŭ regos la arton de esplorpapera verkado.

Preta por komenci?

Kio Estas Esplora Papero?

Esplora artikolo estas ampleksa eseo, kiu donas detalan analizon, interpreton aŭ argumenton bazitan sur via propra sendependa esplorado. En pli altnivelaj akademiaj agordoj, ĝi preterpasas simplan resumon kaj inkluzivas profundan enketon pri la temo aŭ temoj.

La esprimo "esplorpapero" estas larĝa esprimo kiu povas esti aplikita al multaj malsamaj formoj de akademia skribo. La celo estas kombini viajn pensojn kun la trovoj de kolega reviziita scienca literaturo.

Kiam via eseo estas farita, vi devus esti provizinta vian leganton per nova perspektivo aŭ defii ekzistantajn trovojn. Ĉi tio pruvas vian majstradon de la temo kaj kontribuas al daŭraj sciencaj debatoj.

7 Konsiletoj por Skribi Esploran Paperon

Ofte, komenci estas la plej malfacila parto de esplora artikolo. Dum la procezo povas ŝajni malkuraĝiga, malkonstrui ĝin en regeblajn paŝojn povas faciligi ĝin administri. La jenaj estas sep konsiletoj por eltiri viajn ideojn el via kapo kaj sur la paĝon.

1. Komprenu Vian Taskon

Ĝi povas soni simple, sed la unua paŝo por verki sukcesan esploran artikolon estas legi la taskon. Sidiĝu, prenu kelkajn momentojn de via tempo kaj trarigardu la instrukciojn por ke vi plene komprenu vian taskon.

Misinterpreti la taskon povas ne nur kaŭzi gravan malŝparon de tempo sed ankaŭ influi vian noton. Ne gravas kiom pacienca via instruisto aŭ profesoro povas esti, ignori bazajn instrukciojn ofte estas nepardonebla.

Se vi legas la instrukciojn kaj ankoraŭ estas konfuzita, petu klarigon antaŭ ol komenci skribi. Se tio estas neebla, vi povas uzi ilojn kiel La AI-babilejo de Smodin helpi. Smodin povas helpi reliefigi kritikajn postulojn, kiujn vi povas preteratenti.

Ĉi tiu komenca investo certigas, ke ĉiuj viaj estontaj klopodoj estos koncentritaj kaj efikaj. Memoru, pensi estas same grava kiel efektive skribi la eseon, kaj ĝi ankaŭ povas pavimi la ondon por pli glata skribprocezo.

2. Kolektu Esplormaterialojn

Nun venas la amuza parto: fari la esploron. Dum vi kolektas esplormaterialojn, ĉiam uzu kredindajn fontojn, kiel akademiajn ĵurnalojn aŭ recenzitajn artikolojn. Uzu nur serĉilojn, kiuj filtras por akredititaj fontoj kaj akademiaj datumbazoj, por ke vi povu certigi, ke via informo estas fidinda.

Por optimumigi vian tempon, vi devas lerni regi la arton de skimming. Se fonto ŝajnas grava kaj valora, konservu ĝin kaj reviziu ĝin poste. La lasta afero, kiun vi volas fari, estas malŝpari tempon pri materialo, kiu ne faros ĝin en la finan paperon.

Por akceli la procezon eĉ pli, konsideru uzi La AI-resumigilo de Smodin . Ĉi tiu ilo povas helpi resumi grandajn tekstojn, elstarigante ŝlosilajn informojn rilatajn al via temo. Sisteme kolektante kaj arkivante esplormaterialojn frue en la skribprocezo, vi konstruas fortan fundamenton por via tezo.

3. Skribu Vian Tezon

Krei solidan tezdeklaron estas la plej grava afero, kiun vi povas fari por alporti strukturon kaj fokuson al via esplora papero. Via tezo devus esprimi la ĉefan punkton de via argumento per unu aŭ du simplaj frazoj. Memoru, kiam vi kreas vian tezon, vi fiksas la tonon kaj direkton por la tuta papero.

Kompreneble, vi ne povas simple eltiri venkan tezon el la aero. Komencu cerbumante eblajn tezajn ideojn bazitajn sur via prepara esplorado. Kaj ne tropripensu aferojn; foje, la plej rektaj ideoj ofte estas la plej bonaj.

Vi volas tezon sufiĉe specifan por esti regebla en la amplekso de via artikolo sed sufiĉe larĝa por permesi unikan diskuton. Via tezo devus defii ekzistantajn atendojn kaj provizi la leganton per freŝaj komprenoj pri la temo. Uzu vian tezon por kapti la leganton en la komenca alineo kaj konservi ilin engaĝitaj ĝis la lasta vorto.

4. Skribu Vian Skizon

Skizo estas ofte preteratentita sed esenca ilo por organizi viajn pensojn kaj strukturi vian paperon. Multaj studentoj preterlasas la skizon ĉar ĝi sentas kiel fari duoblan laboron, sed forta skizo ŝparos al vi laboron longtempe.

Jen kiel efike strukturi vian skizon.

Enkonduko: Listigu vian tezdeklaron kaj skizu la ĉefajn demandojn, kiujn via eseo respondos.
Literatura Recenzo: Skizu la ŝlosilan literaturon, kiun vi planas diskuti kaj klarigu kiel ĝi rilatos al via tezo.
Metodiko: Klarigu la esplormetodojn, kiujn vi uzos por kolekti kaj analizi la informojn.
Diskuto: Planu kiel vi interpretos la rezultojn kaj iliajn implicojn por via tezo.
konkludo: Resumu la supran enhavon por plene klarigi vian tezon.

Por plie simpligi ĉi tiun procezon, konsideru uzi La Esplorverkisto de Smodin. Ĉi tiu ilo ofertas funkcion, kiu permesas vin generi kaj ĝustigi skizon laŭ via plaĉo laŭ la komenca enigo, kiun vi provizas. Vi povas ĝustigi ĉi tiun skizon por pli bone konveni viajn esplorajn rezultojn kaj certigi, ke via artikolo restas bone organizita kaj fokusita.

5. Skribu Malneton

Post kiam via skizo estas en loko, vi povas komenci la skriban procezon. Memoru, kiam vi skribas malneton, ĝi ne intencas esti perfekta. Anstataŭe, uzu ĝin kiel labordokumenton, kie vi povas eksperimenti kaj reordigi viajn argumentojn kaj pruvojn.

Ne tro zorgu pri gramatiko, stilo aŭ sintakso dum vi verkas vian malneton. Koncentru viajn ideojn sur paperon kaj forigu viajn tezargumentojn. Vi ĉiam povas rafini kaj rearanĝi la enhavon la venontan fojon.

Sekvu la bazan strukturon de via skizo sed kun la libereco esplori malsamajn manierojn esprimi viajn pensojn. Eseverkisto de Smodin ofertas potencan solvon por tiuj, kiuj luktas kun komenci aŭ strukturi siajn skizojn.

Post kiam vi aprobas la skizon, Smodin povas generi eseon bazitan sur viaj komencaj enigaĵoj. Ĉi tiu funkcio povas helpi vin rapide krei ampleksan skizon, kiun vi povas poste revizii kaj rafini. Vi eĉ povas uzi la potencon de AI por krei plurajn malnetojn el kiuj elekti.

6. Aldonu aŭ Subtrahi Subtenajn Indikojn

Unufoje vi havas malneton, sed antaŭ ol vi komencas la finan revizion, estas tempo fari iom da purigado. En ĉi tiu fazo, vi devas revizii ĉiujn viajn subtenajn pruvojn. Vi volas certigi, ke estas nenio superflua kaj ke vi ne preteratentis iujn decidajn detalojn.

Multaj studentoj luktas por kalkuli la bezonatan vorton por eseo kaj recurri al plenigo de sia skribaĵo per superfluaj deklaroj. Anstataŭ aldoni nenecesan enhavon, fokusu vastigi vian analizon por doni pli profundajn komprenojn.

Bona eseo, sendepende de la temo aŭ formato, devas esti simpligita. Ĝi devus transdoni klarajn, konvinkajn, trafajn informojn apogante vian tezon. Se vi trovas ke iuj informoj ne faras tion, konsideru ĝustigi viajn fontojn.

Inkluzivi diversajn fontojn, inkluzive de studoj, datumoj kaj citaĵoj de akademiuloj aŭ aliaj spertuloj. Memoru, vi ne nur plifortigas vian argumenton sed pruvas la profundon de via esplorado.

Se vi volas ampleksajn komentojn pri via eseo sen iri al skribcentro aŭ ĝeni vian profesoron, uzu Smodin. La AI Babilejo povas rigardi vian skizon kaj proponi sugestojn por plibonigo.

7. Reviziu, Citu kaj Submeti

La finaj etapoj de ellaborado de esplora artikolo implikas revizion, citaĵon kaj finan revizion. Vi devas certigi, ke via papero estas polurita, profesie prezentita kaj sen plagiato. Kompreneble, integri la AI-ilojn de Smodin povas signife plifaciligi ĉi tiun procezon kaj plibonigi la kvaliton de via fina submetaĵo.

Komencu uzante la Reskribilon de Smodin. Ĉi tiu funkcio funkciigita de AI povas helpi reformigi kaj rafini vian skizon por plibonigi ĝeneralan legeblecon. Se specifa sekcio de via eseo simple "ne sonas ĝuste", la AI povas sugesti alternativajn frazstrukturojn kaj vortelektojn.

Ĝusta citaĵo estas nepra por ĉiuj akademiaj artikoloj. Feliĉe, dankon al La Esplora Papero de Smodin app, ĉi tiu iam teda procezo estas pli facila ol iam ajn. La AI certigas, ke ĉiuj fontoj estas precize cititaj laŭ la bezonata stilgvidilo (APA, MLA, Ĉikago, ktp.).

Kontrolilo de Plagiato:

Ĉiuj studentoj devas rimarki, ke hazarda plagiato povas okazi. Tial uzi a Plagia Kontrolilo skani vian eseon antaŭ ol vi sendas ĝin ĉiam utilas. La Plagiata Kontrolilo de Smodin povas reliefigi zorgajn areojn, por ke vi povu ĝustigi laŭe.

Fina Submetiĝo

Post reviziado, reformo kaj certigado de ĉiuj citaĵoj estas en ordo, uzu La AI-Enhavo-Detektilo de Smodin doni al via papero lastan recenzon. Ĉi tiu ilo povas helpi vin analizi la ĝeneralan kvaliton kaj legeblecon de via papero, por ke vi povu fari iujn ajn finajn ĝustigojn aŭ plibonigojn.

Majstrado de Esploraj Paperoj

Majstrado de la arto de la esplora artikolo ne povas esti troigita, ĉu vi estas en mezlernejoj, kolegioj aŭ postbakalaŭraj studoj. Vi povas memfide prepari vian esploran paperon por sendado utiligante la AI-ilojn listigitajn supre.

Esploraj artikoloj helpas rafini viajn kapablojn pensi kritike kaj skribi persvade. La kapabloj, kiujn vi disvolvas ĉi tie, servos al vi multe preter la muroj de la klasĉambro. Komuniki kompleksajn ideojn klare kaj efike estas unu el la plej potencaj iloj, kiujn vi povas posedi.

Kun la progresoj de AI-iloj kiel smodin , verki esploran artikolon fariĝis pli alirebla ol iam antaŭe. Ĉi tiuj teknologioj plifaciligas la procezon de organizado, skribo kaj reviziado de via laboro. Skribu kun konfido, sciante, ke via plej bona laboro ankoraŭ venos!

Cultural Relativity and Acceptance of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Article sidebar.

Main Article Content

There is a debate about the ethical implications of using human embryos in stem cell research, which can be influenced by cultural, moral, and social values. This paper argues for an adaptable framework to accommodate diverse cultural and religious perspectives. By using an adaptive ethics model, research protections can reflect various populations and foster growth in stem cell research possibilities.

INTRODUCTION

Stem cell research combines biology, medicine, and technology, promising to alter health care and the understanding of human development. Yet, ethical contention exists because of individuals’ perceptions of using human embryos based on their various cultural, moral, and social values. While these disagreements concerning policy, use, and general acceptance have prompted the development of an international ethics policy, such a uniform approach can overlook the nuanced ethical landscapes between cultures. With diverse viewpoints in public health, a single global policy, especially one reflecting Western ethics or the ethics prevalent in high-income countries, is impractical. This paper argues for a culturally sensitive, adaptable framework for the use of embryonic stem cells. Stem cell policy should accommodate varying ethical viewpoints and promote an effective global dialogue. With an extension of an ethics model that can adapt to various cultures, we recommend localized guidelines that reflect the moral views of the people those guidelines serve.

Stem cells, characterized by their unique ability to differentiate into various cell types, enable the repair or replacement of damaged tissues. Two primary types of stem cells are somatic stem cells (adult stem cells) and embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells exist in developed tissues and maintain the body’s repair processes. [1] Embryonic stem cells (ESC) are remarkably pluripotent or versatile, making them valuable in research. [2] However, the use of ESCs has sparked ethics debates. Considering the potential of embryonic stem cells, research guidelines are essential. The International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) provides international stem cell research guidelines. They call for “public conversations touching on the scientific significance as well as the societal and ethical issues raised by ESC research.” [3] The ISSCR also publishes updates about culturing human embryos 14 days post fertilization, suggesting local policies and regulations should continue to evolve as ESC research develops. [4] Like the ISSCR, which calls for local law and policy to adapt to developing stem cell research given cultural acceptance, this paper highlights the importance of local social factors such as religion and culture.

I. Global Cultural Perspective of Embryonic Stem Cells

Views on ESCs vary throughout the world. Some countries readily embrace stem cell research and therapies, while others have stricter regulations due to ethical concerns surrounding embryonic stem cells and when an embryo becomes entitled to moral consideration. The philosophical issue of when the “someone” begins to be a human after fertilization, in the morally relevant sense, [5] impacts when an embryo becomes not just worthy of protection but morally entitled to it. The process of creating embryonic stem cell lines involves the destruction of the embryos for research. [6] Consequently, global engagement in ESC research depends on social-cultural acceptability.

a. US and Rights-Based Cultures

In the United States, attitudes toward stem cell therapies are diverse. The ethics and social approaches, which value individualism, [7] trigger debates regarding the destruction of human embryos, creating a complex regulatory environment. For example, the 1996 Dickey-Wicker Amendment prohibited federal funding for the creation of embryos for research and the destruction of embryos for “more than allowed for research on fetuses in utero.” [8] Following suit, in 2001, the Bush Administration heavily restricted stem cell lines for research. However, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 was proposed to help develop ESC research but was ultimately vetoed. [9] Under the Obama administration, in 2009, an executive order lifted restrictions allowing for more development in this field. [10] The flux of research capacity and funding parallels the different cultural perceptions of human dignity of the embryo and how it is socially presented within the country’s research culture. [11]

b. Ubuntu and Collective Cultures

African bioethics differs from Western individualism because of the different traditions and values. African traditions, as described by individuals from South Africa and supported by some studies in other African countries, including Ghana and Kenya, follow the African moral philosophies of Ubuntu or Botho and Ukama , which “advocates for a form of wholeness that comes through one’s relationship and connectedness with other people in the society,” [12] making autonomy a socially collective concept. In this context, for the community to act autonomously, individuals would come together to decide what is best for the collective. Thus, stem cell research would require examining the value of the research to society as a whole and the use of the embryos as a collective societal resource. If society views the source as part of the collective whole, and opposes using stem cells, compromising the cultural values to pursue research may cause social detachment and stunt research growth. [13] Based on local culture and moral philosophy, the permissibility of stem cell research depends on how embryo, stem cell, and cell line therapies relate to the community as a whole . Ubuntu is the expression of humanness, with the person’s identity drawn from the “’I am because we are’” value. [14] The decision in a collectivistic culture becomes one born of cultural context, and individual decisions give deference to others in the society.

Consent differs in cultures where thought and moral philosophy are based on a collective paradigm. So, applying Western bioethical concepts is unrealistic. For one, Africa is a diverse continent with many countries with different belief systems, access to health care, and reliance on traditional or Western medicines. Where traditional medicine is the primary treatment, the “’restrictive focus on biomedically-related bioethics’” [is] problematic in African contexts because it neglects bioethical issues raised by traditional systems.” [15] No single approach applies in all areas or contexts. Rather than evaluating the permissibility of ESC research according to Western concepts such as the four principles approach, different ethics approaches should prevail.

Another consideration is the socio-economic standing of countries. In parts of South Africa, researchers have not focused heavily on contributing to the stem cell discourse, either because it is not considered health care or a health science priority or because resources are unavailable. [16] Each country’s priorities differ given different social, political, and economic factors. In South Africa, for instance, areas such as maternal mortality, non-communicable diseases, telemedicine, and the strength of health systems need improvement and require more focus. [17] Stem cell research could benefit the population, but it also could divert resources from basic medical care. Researchers in South Africa adhere to the National Health Act and Medicines Control Act in South Africa and international guidelines; however, the Act is not strictly enforced, and there is no clear legislation for research conduct or ethical guidelines. [18]

Some parts of Africa condemn stem cell research. For example, 98.2 percent of the Tunisian population is Muslim. [19] Tunisia does not permit stem cell research because of moral conflict with a Fatwa. Religion heavily saturates the regulation and direction of research. [20] Stem cell use became permissible for reproductive purposes only recently, with tight restrictions preventing cells from being used in any research other than procedures concerning ART/IVF. Their use is conditioned on consent, and available only to married couples. [21] The community's receptiveness to stem cell research depends on including communitarian African ethics.

c. Asia

Some Asian countries also have a collective model of ethics and decision making. [22] In China, the ethics model promotes a sincere respect for life or human dignity, [23] based on protective medicine. This model, influenced by Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), [24] recognizes Qi as the vital energy delivered via the meridians of the body; it connects illness to body systems, the body’s entire constitution, and the universe for a holistic bond of nature, health, and quality of life. [25] Following a protective ethics model, and traditional customs of wholeness, investment in stem cell research is heavily desired for its applications in regenerative therapies, disease modeling, and protective medicines. In a survey of medical students and healthcare practitioners, 30.8 percent considered stem cell research morally unacceptable while 63.5 percent accepted medical research using human embryonic stem cells. Of these individuals, 89.9 percent supported increased funding for stem cell research. [26] The scientific community might not reflect the overall population. From 1997 to 2019, China spent a total of $576 million (USD) on stem cell research at 8,050 stem cell programs, increased published presence from 0.6 percent to 14.01 percent of total global stem cell publications as of 2014, and made significant strides in cell-based therapies for various medical conditions. [27] However, while China has made substantial investments in stem cell research and achieved notable progress in clinical applications, concerns linger regarding ethical oversight and transparency. [28] For example, the China Biosecurity Law, promoted by the National Health Commission and China Hospital Association, attempted to mitigate risks by introducing an institutional review board (IRB) in the regulatory bodies. 5800 IRBs registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry since 2021. [29] However, issues still need to be addressed in implementing effective IRB review and approval procedures.

The substantial government funding and focus on scientific advancement have sometimes overshadowed considerations of regional cultures, ethnic minorities, and individual perspectives, particularly evident during the one-child policy era. As government policy adapts to promote public stability, such as the change from the one-child to the two-child policy, [30] research ethics should also adapt to ensure respect for the values of its represented peoples.

Japan is also relatively supportive of stem cell research and therapies. Japan has a more transparent regulatory framework, allowing for faster approval of regenerative medicine products, which has led to several advanced clinical trials and therapies. [31] South Korea is also actively engaged in stem cell research and has a history of breakthroughs in cloning and embryonic stem cells. [32] However, the field is controversial, and there are issues of scientific integrity. For example, the Korean FDA fast-tracked products for approval, [33] and in another instance, the oocyte source was unclear and possibly violated ethical standards. [34] Trust is important in research, as it builds collaborative foundations between colleagues, trial participant comfort, open-mindedness for complicated and sensitive discussions, and supports regulatory procedures for stakeholders. There is a need to respect the culture’s interest, engagement, and for research and clinical trials to be transparent and have ethical oversight to promote global research discourse and trust.

d. Middle East

Countries in the Middle East have varying degrees of acceptance of or restrictions to policies related to using embryonic stem cells due to cultural and religious influences. Saudi Arabia has made significant contributions to stem cell research, and conducts research based on international guidelines for ethical conduct and under strict adherence to guidelines in accordance with Islamic principles. Specifically, the Saudi government and people require ESC research to adhere to Sharia law. In addition to umbilical and placental stem cells, [35] Saudi Arabia permits the use of embryonic stem cells as long as they come from miscarriages, therapeutic abortions permissible by Sharia law, or are left over from in vitro fertilization and donated to research. [36] Laws and ethical guidelines for stem cell research allow the development of research institutions such as the King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, which has a cord blood bank and a stem cell registry with nearly 10,000 donors. [37] Such volume and acceptance are due to the ethical ‘permissibility’ of the donor sources, which do not conflict with religious pillars. However, some researchers err on the side of caution, choosing not to use embryos or fetal tissue as they feel it is unethical to do so. [38]

Jordan has a positive research ethics culture. [39] However, there is a significant issue of lack of trust in researchers, with 45.23 percent (38.66 percent agreeing and 6.57 percent strongly agreeing) of Jordanians holding a low level of trust in researchers, compared to 81.34 percent of Jordanians agreeing that they feel safe to participate in a research trial. [40] Safety testifies to the feeling of confidence that adequate measures are in place to protect participants from harm, whereas trust in researchers could represent the confidence in researchers to act in the participants’ best interests, adhere to ethical guidelines, provide accurate information, and respect participants’ rights and dignity. One method to improve trust would be to address communication issues relevant to ESC. Legislation surrounding stem cell research has adopted specific language, especially concerning clarification “between ‘stem cells’ and ‘embryonic stem cells’” in translation. [41] Furthermore, legislation “mandates the creation of a national committee… laying out specific regulations for stem-cell banking in accordance with international standards.” [42] This broad regulation opens the door for future global engagement and maintains transparency. However, these regulations may also constrain the influence of research direction, pace, and accessibility of research outcomes.

e. Europe

In the European Union (EU), ethics is also principle-based, but the principles of autonomy, dignity, integrity, and vulnerability are interconnected. [43] As such, the opportunity for cohesion and concessions between individuals’ thoughts and ideals allows for a more adaptable ethics model due to the flexible principles that relate to the human experience The EU has put forth a framework in its Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being allowing member states to take different approaches. Each European state applies these principles to its specific conventions, leading to or reflecting different acceptance levels of stem cell research. [44]

For example, in Germany, Lebenzusammenhang , or the coherence of life, references integrity in the unity of human culture. Namely, the personal sphere “should not be subject to external intervention.” [45] Stem cell interventions could affect this concept of bodily completeness, leading to heavy restrictions. Under the Grundgesetz, human dignity and the right to life with physical integrity are paramount. [46] The Embryo Protection Act of 1991 made producing cell lines illegal. Cell lines can be imported if approved by the Central Ethics Commission for Stem Cell Research only if they were derived before May 2007. [47] Stem cell research respects the integrity of life for the embryo with heavy specifications and intense oversight. This is vastly different in Finland, where the regulatory bodies find research more permissible in IVF excess, but only up to 14 days after fertilization. [48] Spain’s approach differs still, with a comprehensive regulatory framework. [49] Thus, research regulation can be culture-specific due to variations in applied principles. Diverse cultures call for various approaches to ethical permissibility. [50] Only an adaptive-deliberative model can address the cultural constructions of self and achieve positive, culturally sensitive stem cell research practices. [51]

II. Religious Perspectives on ESC

Embryonic stem cell sources are the main consideration within religious contexts. While individuals may not regard their own religious texts as authoritative or factual, religion can shape their foundations or perspectives.

The Qur'an states:

“And indeed We created man from a quintessence of clay. Then We placed within him a small quantity of nutfa (sperm to fertilize) in a safe place. Then We have fashioned the nutfa into an ‘alaqa (clinging clot or cell cluster), then We developed the ‘alaqa into mudgha (a lump of flesh), and We made mudgha into bones, and clothed the bones with flesh, then We brought it into being as a new creation. So Blessed is Allah, the Best of Creators.” [52]

Many scholars of Islam estimate the time of soul installment, marked by the angel breathing in the soul to bring the individual into creation, as 120 days from conception. [53] Personhood begins at this point, and the value of life would prohibit research or experimentation that could harm the individual. If the fetus is more than 120 days old, the time ensoulment is interpreted to occur according to Islamic law, abortion is no longer permissible. [54] There are a few opposing opinions about early embryos in Islamic traditions. According to some Islamic theologians, there is no ensoulment of the early embryo, which is the source of stem cells for ESC research. [55]

In Buddhism, the stance on stem cell research is not settled. The main tenets, the prohibition against harming or destroying others (ahimsa) and the pursuit of knowledge (prajña) and compassion (karuna), leave Buddhist scholars and communities divided. [56] Some scholars argue stem cell research is in accordance with the Buddhist tenet of seeking knowledge and ending human suffering. Others feel it violates the principle of not harming others. Finding the balance between these two points relies on the karmic burden of Buddhist morality. In trying to prevent ahimsa towards the embryo, Buddhist scholars suggest that to comply with Buddhist tenets, research cannot be done as the embryo has personhood at the moment of conception and would reincarnate immediately, harming the individual's ability to build their karmic burden. [57] On the other hand, the Bodhisattvas, those considered to be on the path to enlightenment or Nirvana, have given organs and flesh to others to help alleviate grieving and to benefit all. [58] Acceptance varies on applied beliefs and interpretations.

Catholicism does not support embryonic stem cell research, as it entails creation or destruction of human embryos. This destruction conflicts with the belief in the sanctity of life. For example, in the Old Testament, Genesis describes humanity as being created in God’s image and multiplying on the Earth, referencing the sacred rights to human conception and the purpose of development and life. In the Ten Commandments, the tenet that one should not kill has numerous interpretations where killing could mean murder or shedding of the sanctity of life, demonstrating the high value of human personhood. In other books, the theological conception of when life begins is interpreted as in utero, [59] highlighting the inviolability of life and its formation in vivo to make a religious point for accepting such research as relatively limited, if at all. [60] The Vatican has released ethical directives to help apply a theological basis to modern-day conflicts. The Magisterium of the Church states that “unless there is a moral certainty of not causing harm,” experimentation on fetuses, fertilized cells, stem cells, or embryos constitutes a crime. [61] Such procedures would not respect the human person who exists at these stages, according to Catholicism. Damages to the embryo are considered gravely immoral and illicit. [62] Although the Catholic Church officially opposes abortion, surveys demonstrate that many Catholic people hold pro-choice views, whether due to the context of conception, stage of pregnancy, threat to the mother’s life, or for other reasons, demonstrating that practicing members can also accept some but not all tenets. [63]

Some major Jewish denominations, such as the Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist movements, are open to supporting ESC use or research as long as it is for saving a life. [64] Within Judaism, the Talmud, or study, gives personhood to the child at birth and emphasizes that life does not begin at conception: [65]

“If she is found pregnant, until the fortieth day it is mere fluid,” [66]

Whereas most religions prioritize the status of human embryos, the Halakah (Jewish religious law) states that to save one life, most other religious laws can be ignored because it is in pursuit of preservation. [67] Stem cell research is accepted due to application of these religious laws.

We recognize that all religions contain subsets and sects. The variety of environmental and cultural differences within religious groups requires further analysis to respect the flexibility of religious thoughts and practices. We make no presumptions that all cultures require notions of autonomy or morality as under the common morality theory , which asserts a set of universal moral norms that all individuals share provides moral reasoning and guides ethical decisions. [68] We only wish to show that the interaction with morality varies between cultures and countries.

III. A Flexible Ethical Approach

The plurality of different moral approaches described above demonstrates that there can be no universally acceptable uniform law for ESC on a global scale. Instead of developing one standard, flexible ethical applications must be continued. We recommend local guidelines that incorporate important cultural and ethical priorities.

While the Declaration of Helsinki is more relevant to people in clinical trials receiving ESC products, in keeping with the tradition of protections for research subjects, consent of the donor is an ethical requirement for ESC donation in many jurisdictions including the US, Canada, and Europe. [69] The Declaration of Helsinki provides a reference point for regulatory standards and could potentially be used as a universal baseline for obtaining consent prior to gamete or embryo donation.

For instance, in Columbia University’s egg donor program for stem cell research, donors followed standard screening protocols and “underwent counseling sessions that included information as to the purpose of oocyte donation for research, what the oocytes would be used for, the risks and benefits of donation, and process of oocyte stimulation” to ensure transparency for consent. [70] The program helped advance stem cell research and provided clear and safe research methods with paid participants. Though paid participation or covering costs of incidental expenses may not be socially acceptable in every culture or context, [71] and creating embryos for ESC research is illegal in many jurisdictions, Columbia’s program was effective because of the clear and honest communications with donors, IRBs, and related stakeholders. This example demonstrates that cultural acceptance of scientific research and of the idea that an egg or embryo does not have personhood is likely behind societal acceptance of donating eggs for ESC research. As noted, many countries do not permit the creation of embryos for research.

Proper communication and education regarding the process and purpose of stem cell research may bolster comprehension and garner more acceptance. “Given the sensitive subject material, a complete consent process can support voluntary participation through trust, understanding, and ethical norms from the cultures and morals participants value. This can be hard for researchers entering countries of different socioeconomic stability, with different languages and different societal values. [72]

An adequate moral foundation in medical ethics is derived from the cultural and religious basis that informs knowledge and actions. [73] Understanding local cultural and religious values and their impact on research could help researchers develop humility and promote inclusion.

IV. Concerns

Some may argue that if researchers all adhere to one ethics standard, protection will be satisfied across all borders, and the global public will trust researchers. However, defining what needs to be protected and how to define such research standards is very specific to the people to which standards are applied. We suggest that applying one uniform guide cannot accurately protect each individual because we all possess our own perceptions and interpretations of social values. [74] Therefore, the issue of not adjusting to the moral pluralism between peoples in applying one standard of ethics can be resolved by building out ethics models that can be adapted to different cultures and religions.

Other concerns include medical tourism, which may promote health inequities. [75] Some countries may develop and approve products derived from ESC research before others, compromising research ethics or drug approval processes. There are also concerns about the sale of unauthorized stem cell treatments, for example, those without FDA approval in the United States. Countries with robust research infrastructures may be tempted to attract medical tourists, and some customers will have false hopes based on aggressive publicity of unproven treatments. [76]

For example, in China, stem cell clinics can market to foreign clients who are not protected under the regulatory regimes. Companies employ a marketing strategy of “ethically friendly” therapies. Specifically, in the case of Beike, China’s leading stem cell tourism company and sprouting network, ethical oversight of administrators or health bureaus at one site has “the unintended consequence of shifting questionable activities to another node in Beike's diffuse network.” [77] In contrast, Jordan is aware of stem cell research’s potential abuse and its own status as a “health-care hub.” Jordan’s expanded regulations include preserving the interests of individuals in clinical trials and banning private companies from ESC research to preserve transparency and the integrity of research practices. [78]

The social priorities of the community are also a concern. The ISSCR explicitly states that guidelines “should be periodically revised to accommodate scientific advances, new challenges, and evolving social priorities.” [79] The adaptable ethics model extends this consideration further by addressing whether research is warranted given the varying degrees of socioeconomic conditions, political stability, and healthcare accessibilities and limitations. An ethical approach would require discussion about resource allocation and appropriate distribution of funds. [80]

While some religions emphasize the sanctity of life from conception, which may lead to public opposition to ESC research, others encourage ESC research due to its potential for healing and alleviating human pain. Many countries have special regulations that balance local views on embryonic personhood, the benefits of research as individual or societal goods, and the protection of human research subjects. To foster understanding and constructive dialogue, global policy frameworks should prioritize the protection of universal human rights, transparency, and informed consent. In addition to these foundational global policies, we recommend tailoring local guidelines to reflect the diverse cultural and religious perspectives of the populations they govern. Ethics models should be adapted to local populations to effectively establish research protections, growth, and possibilities of stem cell research.

For example, in countries with strong beliefs in the moral sanctity of embryos or heavy religious restrictions, an adaptive model can allow for discussion instead of immediate rejection. In countries with limited individual rights and voice in science policy, an adaptive model ensures cultural, moral, and religious views are taken into consideration, thereby building social inclusion. While this ethical consideration by the government may not give a complete voice to every individual, it will help balance policies and maintain the diverse perspectives of those it affects. Embracing an adaptive ethics model of ESC research promotes open-minded dialogue and respect for the importance of human belief and tradition. By actively engaging with cultural and religious values, researchers can better handle disagreements and promote ethical research practices that benefit each society.

This brief exploration of the religious and cultural differences that impact ESC research reveals the nuances of relative ethics and highlights a need for local policymakers to apply a more intense adaptive model.

[1] Poliwoda, S., Noor, N., Downs, E., Schaaf, A., Cantwell, A., Ganti, L., Kaye, A. D., Mosel, L. I., Carroll, C. B., Viswanath, O., & Urits, I. (2022). Stem cells: a comprehensive review of origins and emerging clinical roles in medical practice. Orthopedic reviews , 14 (3), 37498. https://doi.org/10.52965/001c.37498

[2] Poliwoda, S., Noor, N., Downs, E., Schaaf, A., Cantwell, A., Ganti, L., Kaye, A. D., Mosel, L. I., Carroll, C. B., Viswanath, O., & Urits, I. (2022). Stem cells: a comprehensive review of origins and emerging clinical roles in medical practice. Orthopedic reviews , 14 (3), 37498. https://doi.org/10.52965/001c.37498

[3] International Society for Stem Cell Research. (2023). Laboratory-based human embryonic stem cell research, embryo research, and related research activities . International Society for Stem Cell Research. https://www.isscr.org/guidelines/blog-post-title-one-ed2td-6fcdk ; Kimmelman, J., Hyun, I., Benvenisty, N. et al. Policy: Global standards for stem-cell research. Nature 533 , 311–313 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/533311a

[4] International Society for Stem Cell Research. (2023). Laboratory-based human embryonic stem cell research, embryo research, and related research activities . International Society for Stem Cell Research. https://www.isscr.org/guidelines/blog-post-title-one-ed2td-6fcdk

[5] Concerning the moral philosophies of stem cell research, our paper does not posit a personal moral stance nor delve into the “when” of human life begins. To read further about the philosophical debate, consider the following sources:

Sandel M. J. (2004). Embryo ethics--the moral logic of stem-cell research. The New England journal of medicine , 351 (3), 207–209. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp048145 ; George, R. P., & Lee, P. (2020, September 26). Acorns and Embryos . The New Atlantis. https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/acorns-and-embryos ; Sagan, A., & Singer, P. (2007). The moral status of stem cells. Metaphilosophy , 38 (2/3), 264–284. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24439776 ; McHugh P. R. (2004). Zygote and "clonote"--the ethical use of embryonic stem cells. The New England journal of medicine , 351 (3), 209–211. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp048147 ; Kurjak, A., & Tripalo, A. (2004). The facts and doubts about beginning of the human life and personality. Bosnian journal of basic medical sciences , 4 (1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.17305/bjbms.2004.3453

[6] Vazin, T., & Freed, W. J. (2010). Human embryonic stem cells: derivation, culture, and differentiation: a review. Restorative neurology and neuroscience , 28 (4), 589–603. https://doi.org/10.3233/RNN-2010-0543

[7] Socially, at its core, the Western approach to ethics is widely principle-based, autonomy being one of the key factors to ensure a fundamental respect for persons within research. For information regarding autonomy in research, see: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, & National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1978). The Belmont Report. Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research.; For a more in-depth review of autonomy within the US, see: Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (1994). Principles of Biomedical Ethics . Oxford University Press.

[8] Sherley v. Sebelius , 644 F.3d 388 (D.C. Cir. 2011), citing 45 C.F.R. 46.204(b) and [42 U.S.C. § 289g(b)]. https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/6c690438a9b43dd685257a64004ebf99/$file/11-5241-1391178.pdf

[9] Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, H. R. 810, 109 th Cong. (2001). https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr810/text ; Bush, G. W. (2006, July 19). Message to the House of Representatives . National Archives and Records Administration. https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/07/20060719-5.html

[10] National Archives and Records Administration. (2009, March 9). Executive order 13505 -- removing barriers to responsible scientific research involving human stem cells . National Archives and Records Administration. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/removing-barriers-responsible-scientific-research-involving-human-stem-cells

[11] Hurlbut, W. B. (2006). Science, Religion, and the Politics of Stem Cells. Social Research , 73 (3), 819–834. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40971854

[12] Akpa-Inyang, Francis & Chima, Sylvester. (2021). South African traditional values and beliefs regarding informed consent and limitations of the principle of respect for autonomy in African communities: a cross-cultural qualitative study. BMC Medical Ethics . 22. 10.1186/s12910-021-00678-4.

[13] Source for further reading: Tangwa G. B. (2007). Moral status of embryonic stem cells: perspective of an African villager. Bioethics , 21(8), 449–457. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2007.00582.x , see also Mnisi, F. M. (2020). An African analysis based on ethics of Ubuntu - are human embryonic stem cell patents morally justifiable? African Insight , 49 (4).

[14] Jecker, N. S., & Atuire, C. (2021). Bioethics in Africa: A contextually enlightened analysis of three cases. Developing World Bioethics , 22 (2), 112–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12324

[15] Jecker, N. S., & Atuire, C. (2021). Bioethics in Africa: A contextually enlightened analysis of three cases. Developing World Bioethics, 22(2), 112–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12324

[16] Jackson, C.S., Pepper, M.S. Opportunities and barriers to establishing a cell therapy programme in South Africa. Stem Cell Res Ther 4 , 54 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/scrt204 ; Pew Research Center. (2014, May 1). Public health a major priority in African nations . Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2014/05/01/public-health-a-major-priority-in-african-nations/

[17] Department of Health Republic of South Africa. (2021). Health Research Priorities (revised) for South Africa 2021-2024 . National Health Research Strategy. https://www.health.gov.za/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/National-Health-Research-Priorities-2021-2024.pdf

[18] Oosthuizen, H. (2013). Legal and Ethical Issues in Stem Cell Research in South Africa. In: Beran, R. (eds) Legal and Forensic Medicine. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32338-6_80 , see also: Gaobotse G (2018) Stem Cell Research in Africa: Legislation and Challenges. J Regen Med 7:1. doi: 10.4172/2325-9620.1000142

[19] United States Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. (1998). Tunisia: Information on the status of Christian conversions in Tunisia . UNHCR Web Archive. https://webarchive.archive.unhcr.org/20230522142618/https://www.refworld.org/docid/3df0be9a2.html

[20] Gaobotse, G. (2018) Stem Cell Research in Africa: Legislation and Challenges. J Regen Med 7:1. doi: 10.4172/2325-9620.1000142

[21] Kooli, C. Review of assisted reproduction techniques, laws, and regulations in Muslim countries. Middle East Fertil Soc J 24 , 8 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43043-019-0011-0 ; Gaobotse, G. (2018) Stem Cell Research in Africa: Legislation and Challenges. J Regen Med 7:1. doi: 10.4172/2325-9620.1000142

[22] Pang M. C. (1999). Protective truthfulness: the Chinese way of safeguarding patients in informed treatment decisions. Journal of medical ethics , 25(3), 247–253. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.25.3.247

[23] Wang, L., Wang, F., & Zhang, W. (2021). Bioethics in China’s biosecurity law: Forms, effects, and unsettled issues. Journal of law and the biosciences , 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsab019 https://academic.oup.com/jlb/article/8/1/lsab019/6299199

[24] Wang, Y., Xue, Y., & Guo, H. D. (2022). Intervention effects of traditional Chinese medicine on stem cell therapy of myocardial infarction. Frontiers in pharmacology , 13 , 1013740. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2022.1013740

[25] Li, X.-T., & Zhao, J. (2012). Chapter 4: An Approach to the Nature of Qi in TCM- Qi and Bioenergy. In Recent Advances in Theories and Practice of Chinese Medicine (p. 79). InTech.

[26] Luo, D., Xu, Z., Wang, Z., & Ran, W. (2021). China's Stem Cell Research and Knowledge Levels of Medical Practitioners and Students. Stem cells international , 2021 , 6667743. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6667743

[27] Luo, D., Xu, Z., Wang, Z., & Ran, W. (2021). China's Stem Cell Research and Knowledge Levels of Medical Practitioners and Students. Stem cells international , 2021 , 6667743. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6667743

[28] Zhang, J. Y. (2017). Lost in translation? accountability and governance of Clinical Stem Cell Research in China. Regenerative Medicine , 12 (6), 647–656. https://doi.org/10.2217/rme-2017-0035

[29] Wang, L., Wang, F., & Zhang, W. (2021). Bioethics in China’s biosecurity law: Forms, effects, and unsettled issues. Journal of law and the biosciences , 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsab019 https://academic.oup.com/jlb/article/8/1/lsab019/6299199

[30] Chen, H., Wei, T., Wang, H. et al. Association of China’s two-child policy with changes in number of births and birth defects rate, 2008–2017. BMC Public Health 22 , 434 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-12839-0

[31] Azuma, K. Regulatory Landscape of Regenerative Medicine in Japan. Curr Stem Cell Rep 1 , 118–128 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40778-015-0012-6

[32] Harris, R. (2005, May 19). Researchers Report Advance in Stem Cell Production . NPR. https://www.npr.org/2005/05/19/4658967/researchers-report-advance-in-stem-cell-production

[33] Park, S. (2012). South Korea steps up stem-cell work. Nature . https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2012.10565

[34] Resnik, D. B., Shamoo, A. E., & Krimsky, S. (2006). Fraudulent human embryonic stem cell research in South Korea: lessons learned. Accountability in research , 13 (1), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989620600634193 .

[35] Alahmad, G., Aljohani, S., & Najjar, M. F. (2020). Ethical challenges regarding the use of stem cells: interviews with researchers from Saudi Arabia. BMC medical ethics, 21(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00482-6

[36] Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies. https://www.aabb.org/regulatory-and-advocacy/regulatory-affairs/regulatory-for-cellular-therapies/international-competent-authorities/saudi-arabia

[37] Alahmad, G., Aljohani, S., & Najjar, M. F. (2020). Ethical challenges regarding the use of stem cells: Interviews with researchers from Saudi Arabia. BMC medical ethics , 21 (1), 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00482-6

[38] Alahmad, G., Aljohani, S., & Najjar, M. F. (2020). Ethical challenges regarding the use of stem cells: Interviews with researchers from Saudi Arabia. BMC medical ethics , 21(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00482-6

Culturally, autonomy practices follow a relational autonomy approach based on a paternalistic deontological health care model. The adherence to strict international research policies and religious pillars within the regulatory environment is a great foundation for research ethics. However, there is a need to develop locally targeted ethics approaches for research (as called for in Alahmad, G., Aljohani, S., & Najjar, M. F. (2020). Ethical challenges regarding the use of stem cells: interviews with researchers from Saudi Arabia. BMC medical ethics, 21(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00482-6), this decision-making approach may help advise a research decision model. For more on the clinical cultural autonomy approaches, see: Alabdullah, Y. Y., Alzaid, E., Alsaad, S., Alamri, T., Alolayan, S. W., Bah, S., & Aljoudi, A. S. (2022). Autonomy and paternalism in Shared decision‐making in a Saudi Arabian tertiary hospital: A cross‐sectional study. Developing World Bioethics , 23 (3), 260–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12355 ; Bukhari, A. A. (2017). Universal Principles of Bioethics and Patient Rights in Saudi Arabia (Doctoral dissertation, Duquesne University). https://dsc.duq.edu/etd/124; Ladha, S., Nakshawani, S. A., Alzaidy, A., & Tarab, B. (2023, October 26). Islam and Bioethics: What We All Need to Know . Columbia University School of Professional Studies. https://sps.columbia.edu/events/islam-and-bioethics-what-we-all-need-know

[39] Ababneh, M. A., Al-Azzam, S. I., Alzoubi, K., Rababa’h, A., & Al Demour, S. (2021). Understanding and attitudes of the Jordanian public about clinical research ethics. Research Ethics , 17 (2), 228-241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016120966779

[40] Ababneh, M. A., Al-Azzam, S. I., Alzoubi, K., Rababa’h, A., & Al Demour, S. (2021). Understanding and attitudes of the Jordanian public about clinical research ethics. Research Ethics , 17 (2), 228-241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016120966779

[41] Dajani, R. (2014). Jordan’s stem-cell law can guide the Middle East. Nature 510, 189. https://doi.org/10.1038/510189a

[42] Dajani, R. (2014). Jordan’s stem-cell law can guide the Middle East. Nature 510, 189. https://doi.org/10.1038/510189a

[43] The EU’s definition of autonomy relates to the capacity for creating ideas, moral insight, decisions, and actions without constraint, personal responsibility, and informed consent. However, the EU views autonomy as not completely able to protect individuals and depends on other principles, such as dignity, which “expresses the intrinsic worth and fundamental equality of all human beings.” Rendtorff, J.D., Kemp, P. (2019). Four Ethical Principles in European Bioethics and Biolaw: Autonomy, Dignity, Integrity and Vulnerability. In: Valdés, E., Lecaros, J. (eds) Biolaw and Policy in the Twenty-First Century. International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine, vol 78. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05903-3_3

[44] Council of Europe. Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (ETS No. 164) https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=treaty-detail&treatynum=164 (forbidding the creation of embryos for research purposes only, and suggests embryos in vitro have protections.); Also see Drabiak-Syed B. K. (2013). New President, New Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research Policy: Comparative International Perspectives and Embryonic Stem Cell Research Laws in France. Biotechnology Law Report , 32 (6), 349–356. https://doi.org/10.1089/blr.2013.9865

[45] Rendtorff, J.D., Kemp, P. (2019). Four Ethical Principles in European Bioethics and Biolaw: Autonomy, Dignity, Integrity and Vulnerability. In: Valdés, E., Lecaros, J. (eds) Biolaw and Policy in the Twenty-First Century. International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine, vol 78. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05903-3_3

[46] Tomuschat, C., Currie, D. P., Kommers, D. P., & Kerr, R. (Trans.). (1949, May 23). Basic law for the Federal Republic of Germany. https://www.btg-bestellservice.de/pdf/80201000.pdf

[47] Regulation of Stem Cell Research in Germany . Eurostemcell. (2017, April 26). https://www.eurostemcell.org/regulation-stem-cell-research-germany

[48] Regulation of Stem Cell Research in Finland . Eurostemcell. (2017, April 26). https://www.eurostemcell.org/regulation-stem-cell-research-finland

[49] Regulation of Stem Cell Research in Spain . Eurostemcell. (2017, April 26). https://www.eurostemcell.org/regulation-stem-cell-research-spain

[50] Some sources to consider regarding ethics models or regulatory oversights of other cultures not covered:

Kara MA. Applicability of the principle of respect for autonomy: the perspective of Turkey. J Med Ethics. 2007 Nov;33(11):627-30. doi: 10.1136/jme.2006.017400. PMID: 17971462; PMCID: PMC2598110.

Ugarte, O. N., & Acioly, M. A. (2014). The principle of autonomy in Brazil: one needs to discuss it ... Revista do Colegio Brasileiro de Cirurgioes , 41 (5), 374–377. https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-69912014005013

Bharadwaj, A., & Glasner, P. E. (2012). Local cells, global science: The rise of embryonic stem cell research in India . Routledge.

For further research on specific European countries regarding ethical and regulatory framework, we recommend this database: Regulation of Stem Cell Research in Europe . Eurostemcell. (2017, April 26). https://www.eurostemcell.org/regulation-stem-cell-research-europe

[51] Klitzman, R. (2006). Complications of culture in obtaining informed consent. The American Journal of Bioethics, 6(1), 20–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265160500394671 see also: Ekmekci, P. E., & Arda, B. (2017). Interculturalism and Informed Consent: Respecting Cultural Differences without Breaching Human Rights. Cultura (Iasi, Romania) , 14 (2), 159–172.; For why trust is important in research, see also: Gray, B., Hilder, J., Macdonald, L., Tester, R., Dowell, A., & Stubbe, M. (2017). Are research ethics guidelines culturally competent? Research Ethics , 13 (1), 23-41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016116650235

[52] The Qur'an (M. Khattab, Trans.). (1965). Al-Mu’minun, 23: 12-14. https://quran.com/23

[53] Lenfest, Y. (2017, December 8). Islam and the beginning of human life . Bill of Health. https://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2017/12/08/islam-and-the-beginning-of-human-life/

[54] Aksoy, S. (2005). Making regulations and drawing up legislation in Islamic countries under conditions of uncertainty, with special reference to embryonic stem cell research. Journal of Medical Ethics , 31: 399-403.; see also: Mahmoud, Azza. "Islamic Bioethics: National Regulations and Guidelines of Human Stem Cell Research in the Muslim World." Master's thesis, Chapman University, 2022. https://doi.org/10.36837/ chapman.000386

[55] Rashid, R. (2022). When does Ensoulment occur in the Human Foetus. Journal of the British Islamic Medical Association , 12 (4). ISSN 2634 8071. https://www.jbima.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/2-Ethics-3_-Ensoulment_Rafaqat.pdf.

[56] Sivaraman, M. & Noor, S. (2017). Ethics of embryonic stem cell research according to Buddhist, Hindu, Catholic, and Islamic religions: perspective from Malaysia. Asian Biomedicine,8(1) 43-52. https://doi.org/10.5372/1905-7415.0801.260

[57] Jafari, M., Elahi, F., Ozyurt, S. & Wrigley, T. (2007). 4. Religious Perspectives on Embryonic Stem Cell Research. In K. Monroe, R. Miller & J. Tobis (Ed.), Fundamentals of the Stem Cell Debate: The Scientific, Religious, Ethical, and Political Issues (pp. 79-94). Berkeley: University of California Press. https://escholarship.org/content/qt9rj0k7s3/qt9rj0k7s3_noSplash_f9aca2e02c3777c7fb76ea768ba458f0.pdf https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520940994-005

[58] Lecso, P. A. (1991). The Bodhisattva Ideal and Organ Transplantation. Journal of Religion and Health , 30 (1), 35–41. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27510629 ; Bodhisattva, S. (n.d.). The Key of Becoming a Bodhisattva . A Guide to the Bodhisattva Way of Life. http://www.buddhism.org/Sutras/2/BodhisattvaWay.htm

[59] There is no explicit religious reference to when life begins or how to conduct research that interacts with the concept of life. However, these are relevant verses pertaining to how the fetus is viewed. (( King James Bible . (1999). Oxford University Press. (original work published 1769))

Jerimiah 1: 5 “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee…”

In prophet Jerimiah’s insight, God set him apart as a person known before childbirth, a theme carried within the Psalm of David.

Psalm 139: 13-14 “…Thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made…”

These verses demonstrate David’s respect for God as an entity that would know of all man’s thoughts and doings even before birth.

[60] It should be noted that abortion is not supported as well.

[61] The Vatican. (1987, February 22). Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation Replies to Certain Questions of the Day . Congregation For the Doctrine of the Faith. https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html

[62] The Vatican. (2000, August 25). Declaration On the Production and the Scientific and Therapeutic Use of Human Embryonic Stem Cells . Pontifical Academy for Life. https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pa_acdlife_doc_20000824_cellule-staminali_en.html ; Ohara, N. (2003). Ethical Consideration of Experimentation Using Living Human Embryos: The Catholic Church’s Position on Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research and Human Cloning. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology . Retrieved from https://article.imrpress.com/journal/CEOG/30/2-3/pii/2003018/77-81.pdf.

[63] Smith, G. A. (2022, May 23). Like Americans overall, Catholics vary in their abortion views, with regular mass attenders most opposed . Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/05/23/like-americans-overall-catholics-vary-in-their-abortion-views-with-regular-mass-attenders-most-opposed/

[64] Rosner, F., & Reichman, E. (2002). Embryonic stem cell research in Jewish law. Journal of halacha and contemporary society , (43), 49–68.; Jafari, M., Elahi, F., Ozyurt, S. & Wrigley, T. (2007). 4. Religious Perspectives on Embryonic Stem Cell Research. In K. Monroe, R. Miller & J. Tobis (Ed.), Fundamentals of the Stem Cell Debate: The Scientific, Religious, Ethical, and Political Issues (pp. 79-94). Berkeley: University of California Press. https://escholarship.org/content/qt9rj0k7s3/qt9rj0k7s3_noSplash_f9aca2e02c3777c7fb76ea768ba458f0.pdf https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520940994-005

[65] Schenker J. G. (2008). The beginning of human life: status of embryo. Perspectives in Halakha (Jewish Religious Law). Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics , 25 (6), 271–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-008-9221-6

[66] Ruttenberg, D. (2020, May 5). The Torah of Abortion Justice (annotated source sheet) . Sefaria. https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/234926.7?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en

[67] Jafari, M., Elahi, F., Ozyurt, S. & Wrigley, T. (2007). 4. Religious Perspectives on Embryonic Stem Cell Research. In K. Monroe, R. Miller & J. Tobis (Ed.), Fundamentals of the Stem Cell Debate: The Scientific, Religious, Ethical, and Political Issues (pp. 79-94). Berkeley: University of California Press. https://escholarship.org/content/qt9rj0k7s3/qt9rj0k7s3_noSplash_f9aca2e02c3777c7fb76ea768ba458f0.pdf https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520940994-005

[68] Gert, B. (2007). Common morality: Deciding what to do . Oxford Univ. Press.

[69] World Medical Association (2013). World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA , 310(20), 2191–2194. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053 Declaration of Helsinki – WMA – The World Medical Association .; see also: National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research . U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html

[70] Zakarin Safier, L., Gumer, A., Kline, M., Egli, D., & Sauer, M. V. (2018). Compensating human subjects providing oocytes for stem cell research: 9-year experience and outcomes. Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics , 35 (7), 1219–1225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-018-1171-z https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6063839/ see also: Riordan, N. H., & Paz Rodríguez, J. (2021). Addressing concerns regarding associated costs, transparency, and integrity of research in recent stem cell trial. Stem Cells Translational Medicine , 10 (12), 1715–1716. https://doi.org/10.1002/sctm.21-0234

[71] Klitzman, R., & Sauer, M. V. (2009). Payment of egg donors in stem cell research in the USA. Reproductive biomedicine online , 18 (5), 603–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1472-6483(10)60002-8

[72] Krosin, M. T., Klitzman, R., Levin, B., Cheng, J., & Ranney, M. L. (2006). Problems in comprehension of informed consent in rural and peri-urban Mali, West Africa. Clinical trials (London, England) , 3 (3), 306–313. https://doi.org/10.1191/1740774506cn150oa

[73] Veatch, Robert M. Hippocratic, Religious, and Secular Medical Ethics: The Points of Conflict . Georgetown University Press, 2012.

[74] Msoroka, M. S., & Amundsen, D. (2018). One size fits not quite all: Universal research ethics with diversity. Research Ethics , 14 (3), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016117739939

[75] Pirzada, N. (2022). The Expansion of Turkey’s Medical Tourism Industry. Voices in Bioethics , 8 . https://doi.org/10.52214/vib.v8i.9894

[76] Stem Cell Tourism: False Hope for Real Money . Harvard Stem Cell Institute (HSCI). (2023). https://hsci.harvard.edu/stem-cell-tourism , See also: Bissassar, M. (2017). Transnational Stem Cell Tourism: An ethical analysis. Voices in Bioethics , 3 . https://doi.org/10.7916/vib.v3i.6027

[77] Song, P. (2011) The proliferation of stem cell therapies in post-Mao China: problematizing ethical regulation, New Genetics and Society , 30:2, 141-153, DOI: 10.1080/14636778.2011.574375

[78] Dajani, R. (2014). Jordan’s stem-cell law can guide the Middle East. Nature 510, 189. https://doi.org/10.1038/510189a

[79] International Society for Stem Cell Research. (2024). Standards in stem cell research . International Society for Stem Cell Research. https://www.isscr.org/guidelines/5-standards-in-stem-cell-research

[80] Benjamin, R. (2013). People’s science bodies and rights on the Stem Cell Frontier . Stanford University Press.

Mifrah Hayath

SM Candidate Harvard Medical School, MS Biotechnology Johns Hopkins University

Olivia Bowers

MS Bioethics Columbia University (Disclosure: affiliated with Voices in Bioethics)

Article Details

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License .

Main Navigation

Contact NeurIPS
Code of Ethics
Code of Conduct
Create Profile
Journal To Conference Track
Diversity & Inclusion
Proceedings
Future Meetings
Exhibitor Information
Privacy Policy

NeurIPS 2024

Conference Dates: (In person) 9 December - 15 December, 2024

Homepage: https://neurips.cc/Conferences/2024/

Call For Papers

Abstract submission deadline: May 15, 2024

Author notification: Sep 25, 2024

Camera-ready, poster, and video submission: Oct 30, 2024 AOE

Submit at: https://openreview.net/group?id=NeurIPS.cc/2024/Conference

The site will start accepting submissions on Apr 22, 2024

Subscribe to these and other dates on the 2024 dates page .

The Thirty-Eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2024) is an interdisciplinary conference that brings together researchers in machine learning, neuroscience, statistics, optimization, computer vision, natural language processing, life sciences, natural sciences, social sciences, and other adjacent fields. We invite submissions presenting new and original research on topics including but not limited to the following:

Applications (e.g., vision, language, speech and audio, Creative AI)
Deep learning (e.g., architectures, generative models, optimization for deep networks, foundation models, LLMs)
Evaluation (e.g., methodology, meta studies, replicability and validity, human-in-the-loop)
General machine learning (supervised, unsupervised, online, active, etc.)
Infrastructure (e.g., libraries, improved implementation and scalability, distributed solutions)
Machine learning for sciences (e.g. climate, health, life sciences, physics, social sciences)
Neuroscience and cognitive science (e.g., neural coding, brain-computer interfaces)
Optimization (e.g., convex and non-convex, stochastic, robust)
Probabilistic methods (e.g., variational inference, causal inference, Gaussian processes)
Reinforcement learning (e.g., decision and control, planning, hierarchical RL, robotics)
Social and economic aspects of machine learning (e.g., fairness, interpretability, human-AI interaction, privacy, safety, strategic behavior)
Theory (e.g., control theory, learning theory, algorithmic game theory)

Machine learning is a rapidly evolving field, and so we welcome interdisciplinary submissions that do not fit neatly into existing categories.

Authors are asked to confirm that their submissions accord with the NeurIPS code of conduct .

Formatting instructions: All submissions must be in PDF format, and in a single PDF file include, in this order:

The submitted paper
Technical appendices that support the paper with additional proofs, derivations, or results
The NeurIPS paper checklist

Other supplementary materials such as data and code can be uploaded as a ZIP file

The main text of a submitted paper is limited to nine content pages , including all figures and tables. Additional pages containing references don’t count as content pages. If your submission is accepted, you will be allowed an additional content page for the camera-ready version.

The main text and references may be followed by technical appendices, for which there is no page limit.

The maximum file size for a full submission, which includes technical appendices, is 50MB.

Authors are encouraged to submit a separate ZIP file that contains further supplementary material like data or source code, when applicable.

You must format your submission using the NeurIPS 2024 LaTeX style file which includes a “preprint” option for non-anonymous preprints posted online. Submissions that violate the NeurIPS style (e.g., by decreasing margins or font sizes) or page limits may be rejected without further review. Papers may be rejected without consideration of their merits if they fail to meet the submission requirements, as described in this document.

Paper checklist: In order to improve the rigor and transparency of research submitted to and published at NeurIPS, authors are required to complete a paper checklist . The paper checklist is intended to help authors reflect on a wide variety of issues relating to responsible machine learning research, including reproducibility, transparency, research ethics, and societal impact. The checklist forms part of the paper submission, but does not count towards the page limit.

Please join the NeurIPS 2024 Checklist Assistant Study that will provide you with free verification of your checklist performed by an LLM here . Please see details in our blog

Supplementary material: While all technical appendices should be included as part of the main paper submission PDF, authors may submit up to 100MB of supplementary material, such as data, or source code in a ZIP format. Supplementary material should be material created by the authors that directly supports the submission content. Like submissions, supplementary material must be anonymized. Looking at supplementary material is at the discretion of the reviewers.

We encourage authors to upload their code and data as part of their supplementary material in order to help reviewers assess the quality of the work. Check the policy as well as code submission guidelines and templates for further details.

Use of Large Language Models (LLMs): We welcome authors to use any tool that is suitable for preparing high-quality papers and research. However, we ask authors to keep in mind two important criteria. First, we expect papers to fully describe their methodology, and any tool that is important to that methodology, including the use of LLMs, should be described also. For example, authors should mention tools (including LLMs) that were used for data processing or filtering, visualization, facilitating or running experiments, and proving theorems. It may also be advisable to describe the use of LLMs in implementing the method (if this corresponds to an important, original, or non-standard component of the approach). Second, authors are responsible for the entire content of the paper, including all text and figures, so while authors are welcome to use any tool they wish for writing the paper, they must ensure that all text is correct and original.

Double-blind reviewing: All submissions must be anonymized and may not contain any identifying information that may violate the double-blind reviewing policy. This policy applies to any supplementary or linked material as well, including code. If you are including links to any external material, it is your responsibility to guarantee anonymous browsing. Please do not include acknowledgements at submission time. If you need to cite one of your own papers, you should do so with adequate anonymization to preserve double-blind reviewing. For instance, write “In the previous work of Smith et al. [1]…” rather than “In our previous work [1]...”). If you need to cite one of your own papers that is in submission to NeurIPS and not available as a non-anonymous preprint, then include a copy of the cited anonymized submission in the supplementary material and write “Anonymous et al. [1] concurrently show...”). Any papers found to be violating this policy will be rejected.

OpenReview: We are using OpenReview to manage submissions. The reviews and author responses will not be public initially (but may be made public later, see below). As in previous years, submissions under review will be visible only to their assigned program committee. We will not be soliciting comments from the general public during the reviewing process. Anyone who plans to submit a paper as an author or a co-author will need to create (or update) their OpenReview profile by the full paper submission deadline. Your OpenReview profile can be edited by logging in and clicking on your name in https://openreview.net/ . This takes you to a URL "https://openreview.net/profile?id=~[Firstname]_[Lastname][n]" where the last part is your profile name, e.g., ~Wei_Zhang1. The OpenReview profiles must be up to date, with all publications by the authors, and their current affiliations. The easiest way to import publications is through DBLP but it is not required, see FAQ . Submissions without updated OpenReview profiles will be desk rejected. The information entered in the profile is critical for ensuring that conflicts of interest and reviewer matching are handled properly. Because of the rapid growth of NeurIPS, we request that all authors help with reviewing papers, if asked to do so. We need everyone’s help in maintaining the high scientific quality of NeurIPS.

Please be aware that OpenReview has a moderation policy for newly created profiles: New profiles created without an institutional email will go through a moderation process that can take up to two weeks. New profiles created with an institutional email will be activated automatically.

Venue home page: https://openreview.net/group?id=NeurIPS.cc/2024/Conference

If you have any questions, please refer to the FAQ: https://openreview.net/faq

Abstract Submission: There is a mandatory abstract submission deadline on May 15, 2024, six days before full paper submissions are due. While it will be possible to edit the title and abstract until the full paper submission deadline, submissions with “placeholder” abstracts that are rewritten for the full submission risk being removed without consideration. This includes titles and abstracts that either provide little or no semantic information (e.g., "We provide a new semi-supervised learning method.") or describe a substantively different claimed contribution. The author list cannot be changed after the abstract deadline. After that, authors may be reordered, but any additions or removals must be justified in writing and approved on a case-by-case basis by the program chairs only in exceptional circumstances.

Ethics review: Reviewers and ACs may flag submissions for ethics review . Flagged submissions will be sent to an ethics review committee for comments. Comments from ethics reviewers will be considered by the primary reviewers and AC as part of their deliberation. They will also be visible to authors, who will have an opportunity to respond. Ethics reviewers do not have the authority to reject papers, but in extreme cases papers may be rejected by the program chairs on ethical grounds, regardless of scientific quality or contribution.

Preprints: The existence of non-anonymous preprints (on arXiv or other online repositories, personal websites, social media) will not result in rejection. If you choose to use the NeurIPS style for the preprint version, you must use the “preprint” option rather than the “final” option. Reviewers will be instructed not to actively look for such preprints, but encountering them will not constitute a conflict of interest. Authors may submit anonymized work to NeurIPS that is already available as a preprint (e.g., on arXiv) without citing it. Note that public versions of the submission should not say "Under review at NeurIPS" or similar.

Dual submissions: Submissions that are substantially similar to papers that the authors have previously published or submitted in parallel to other peer-reviewed venues with proceedings or journals may not be submitted to NeurIPS. Papers previously presented at workshops are permitted, so long as they did not appear in a conference proceedings (e.g., CVPRW proceedings), a journal or a book. NeurIPS coordinates with other conferences to identify dual submissions. The NeurIPS policy on dual submissions applies for the entire duration of the reviewing process. Slicing contributions too thinly is discouraged. The reviewing process will treat any other submission by an overlapping set of authors as prior work. If publishing one would render the other too incremental, both may be rejected.

Anti-collusion: NeurIPS does not tolerate any collusion whereby authors secretly cooperate with reviewers, ACs or SACs to obtain favorable reviews.

Author responses: Authors will have one week to view and respond to initial reviews. Author responses may not contain any identifying information that may violate the double-blind reviewing policy. Authors may not submit revisions of their paper or supplemental material, but may post their responses as a discussion in OpenReview. This is to reduce the burden on authors to have to revise their paper in a rush during the short rebuttal period.

After the initial response period, authors will be able to respond to any further reviewer/AC questions and comments by posting on the submission’s forum page. The program chairs reserve the right to solicit additional reviews after the initial author response period. These reviews will become visible to the authors as they are added to OpenReview, and authors will have a chance to respond to them.

After the notification deadline, accepted and opted-in rejected papers will be made public and open for non-anonymous public commenting. Their anonymous reviews, meta-reviews, author responses and reviewer responses will also be made public. Authors of rejected papers will have two weeks after the notification deadline to opt in to make their deanonymized rejected papers public in OpenReview. These papers are not counted as NeurIPS publications and will be shown as rejected in OpenReview.

Publication of accepted submissions: Reviews, meta-reviews, and any discussion with the authors will be made public for accepted papers (but reviewer, area chair, and senior area chair identities will remain anonymous). Camera-ready papers will be due in advance of the conference. All camera-ready papers must include a funding disclosure . We strongly encourage accompanying code and data to be submitted with accepted papers when appropriate, as per the code submission policy . Authors will be allowed to make minor changes for a short period of time after the conference.

Contemporaneous Work: For the purpose of the reviewing process, papers that appeared online within two months of a submission will generally be considered "contemporaneous" in the sense that the submission will not be rejected on the basis of the comparison to contemporaneous work. Authors are still expected to cite and discuss contemporaneous work and perform empirical comparisons to the degree feasible. Any paper that influenced the submission is considered prior work and must be cited and discussed as such. Submissions that are very similar to contemporaneous work will undergo additional scrutiny to prevent cases of plagiarism and missing credit to prior work.

Plagiarism is prohibited by the NeurIPS Code of Conduct .

Other Tracks: Similarly to earlier years, we will host multiple tracks, such as datasets, competitions, tutorials as well as workshops, in addition to the main track for which this call for papers is intended. See the conference homepage for updates and calls for participation in these tracks.

Experiments: As in past years, the program chairs will be measuring the quality and effectiveness of the review process via randomized controlled experiments. All experiments are independently reviewed and approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB).

Financial Aid: Each paper may designate up to one (1) NeurIPS.cc account email address of a corresponding student author who confirms that they would need the support to attend the conference, and agrees to volunteer if they get selected. To be considered for Financial the student will also need to fill out the Financial Aid application when it becomes available.

Suggestions or feedback?

MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Machine learning
Social justice
Black holes
Classes and programs

Departments

Aeronautics and Astronautics
Brain and Cognitive Sciences
Architecture
Political Science
Mechanical Engineering

Centers, Labs, & Programs

Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL)
Picower Institute for Learning and Memory
Lincoln Laboratory
School of Architecture + Planning
School of Engineering
School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
Sloan School of Management
School of Science
MIT Schwarzman College of Computing

Using ideas from game theory to improve the reliability of language models

Press contact :.

A digital illustration featuring two stylized figures engaged in a conversation over a tabletop board game.

Previous image Next image

Imagine you and a friend are playing a game where your goal is to communicate secret messages to each other using only cryptic sentences. Your friend's job is to guess the secret message behind your sentences. Sometimes, you give clues directly, and other times, your friend has to guess the message by asking yes-or-no questions about the clues you've given. The challenge is that both of you want to make sure you're understanding each other correctly and agreeing on the secret message.

MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) researchers have created a similar "game" to help improve how AI understands and generates text. It is known as a “consensus game” and it involves two parts of an AI system — one part tries to generate sentences (like giving clues), and the other part tries to understand and evaluate those sentences (like guessing the secret message).

The researchers discovered that by treating this interaction as a game, where both parts of the AI work together under specific rules to agree on the right message, they could significantly improve the AI's ability to give correct and coherent answers to questions. They tested this new game-like approach on a variety of tasks, such as reading comprehension, solving math problems, and carrying on conversations, and found that it helped the AI perform better across the board.

Traditionally, large language models answer one of two ways: generating answers directly from the model (generative querying) or using the model to score a set of predefined answers (discriminative querying), which can lead to differing and sometimes incompatible results. With the generative approach, "Who is the president of the United States?" might yield a straightforward answer like "Joe Biden." However, a discriminative query could incorrectly dispute this fact when evaluating the same answer, such as "Barack Obama."

So, how do we reconcile mutually incompatible scoring procedures to achieve coherent, efficient predictions?

"Imagine a new way to help language models understand and generate text, like a game. We've developed a training-free, game-theoretic method that treats the whole process as a complex game of clues and signals, where a generator tries to send the right message to a discriminator using natural language. Instead of chess pieces, they're using words and sentences," says Athul Jacob, an MIT PhD student in electrical engineering and computer science and CSAIL affiliate. "Our way to navigate this game is finding the 'approximate equilibria,' leading to a new decoding algorithm called 'equilibrium ranking.' It's a pretty exciting demonstration of how bringing game-theoretic strategies into the mix can tackle some big challenges in making language models more reliable and consistent."

When tested across many tasks, like reading comprehension, commonsense reasoning, math problem-solving, and dialogue, the team's algorithm consistently improved how well these models performed. Using the ER algorithm with the LLaMA-7B model even outshone the results from much larger models. "Given that they are already competitive, that people have been working on it for a while, but the level of improvements we saw being able to outperform a model that's 10 times the size was a pleasant surprise," says Jacob.

"Diplomacy," a strategic board game set in pre-World War I Europe, where players negotiate alliances, betray friends, and conquer territories without the use of dice — relying purely on skill, strategy, and interpersonal manipulation — recently had a second coming. In November 2022, computer scientists, including Jacob, developed “Cicero,” an AI agent that achieves human-level capabilities in the mixed-motive seven-player game, which requires the same aforementioned skills, but with natural language. The math behind this partially inspired the Consensus Game.

While the history of AI agents long predates when OpenAI's software entered the chat in November 2022, it's well documented that they can still cosplay as your well-meaning, yet pathological friend.

The consensus game system reaches equilibrium as an agreement, ensuring accuracy and fidelity to the model's original insights. To achieve this, the method iteratively adjusts the interactions between the generative and discriminative components until they reach a consensus on an answer that accurately reflects reality and aligns with their initial beliefs. This approach effectively bridges the gap between the two querying methods.

In practice, implementing the consensus game approach to language model querying, especially for question-answering tasks, does involve significant computational challenges. For example, when using datasets like MMLU, which have thousands of questions and multiple-choice answers, the model must apply the mechanism to each query. Then, it must reach a consensus between the generative and discriminative components for every question and its possible answers.

The system did struggle with a grade school right of passage: math word problems. It couldn't generate wrong answers, which is a critical component of understanding the process of coming up with the right one.

“The last few years have seen really impressive progress in both strategic decision-making and language generation from AI systems, but we’re just starting to figure out how to put the two together. Equilibrium ranking is a first step in this direction, but I think there’s a lot we’ll be able to do to scale this up to more complex problems,” says Jacob.

An avenue of future work involves enhancing the base model by integrating the outputs of the current method. This is particularly promising since it can yield more factual and consistent answers across various tasks, including factuality and open-ended generation. The potential for such a method to significantly improve the base model's performance is high, which could result in more reliable and factual outputs from ChatGPT and similar language models that people use daily.

"Even though modern language models, such as ChatGPT and Gemini, have led to solving various tasks through chat interfaces, the statistical decoding process that generates a response from such models has remained unchanged for decades," says Google Research Scientist Ahmad Beirami, who was not involved in the work. "The proposal by the MIT researchers is an innovative game-theoretic framework for decoding from language models through solving the equilibrium of a consensus game. The significant performance gains reported in the research paper are promising, opening the door to a potential paradigm shift in language model decoding that may fuel a flurry of new applications."

Jacob wrote the paper with MIT-IBM Watson Lab researcher Yikang Shen and MIT Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science assistant professors Gabriele Farina and Jacob Andreas, who is also a CSAIL member. They presented their work at the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) earlier this month, where it was highlighted as a "spotlight paper." The research also received a “best paper award” at the NeurIPS R0-FoMo Workshop in December 2023.

Share this news article on:

Press mentions, quanta magazine.

MIT researchers have developed a new procedure that uses game theory to improve the accuracy and consistency of large language models (LLMs), reports Steve Nadis for Quanta Magazine . “The new work, which uses games to improve AI, stands in contrast to past approaches, which measured an AI program’s success via its mastery of games,” explains Nadis.

Previous item Next item

Reasoning and reliability in AI

Large red text says “AI” in front of a dynamic, colorful, swirling background. 2 floating hands made of dots attempt to grab the text, and strange glowing blobs dance around the image.

Explained: Generative AI

Illustration of a disembodied brain with glowing tentacles reaching out to different squares of images at the ends

Synthetic imagery sets new bar in AI training efficiency

Two iPads displaying a girl wearing a hijab seated on a plane are on either side of an image of a plane in flight.

Simulating discrimination in virtual reality

More mit news.

Janabel Xia dancing in front of a blackboard. Her back is arched, head thrown back, hair flying, and arms in the air as she looks at the camera and smiles.

Janabel Xia: Algorithms, dance rhythms, and the drive to succeed

Read full story →

Jonathan Byrnes, MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics senior lecturer and visionary in supply chain management, dies at 75

Colorful rendering shows a lattice of black and grey balls making a honeycomb-shaped molecule, the MOF. Snaking around it is the polymer, represented as a translucent string of teal balls. Brown molecules, representing toxic gas, also float around.

Researchers develop a detector for continuously monitoring toxic gases

The beauty of biology

Navigating longevity with industry leaders at MIT AgeLab PLAN Forum

Jeong Min Park poses leaning on an outdoor sculpture in Killian Court.

Jeong Min Park earns 2024 Schmidt Science Fellowship

More news on MIT News homepage →

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, USA

Map (opens in new window)
Events (opens in new window)
People (opens in new window)
Careers (opens in new window)
Accessibility
Social Media Hub
MIT on Facebook
MIT on YouTube
MIT on Instagram

IMAGES

Tips For How To Write A Scientific Research Paper
Where to Submit Research Paper? Quick Guide for Authors
How to write Method Section of Research Paper in 03 easy steps
Publication process from submission to acceptance
How to Publish Your Own Science Journal?
How to submit research paper in journal / cheap assignment writing service

VIDEO

PhD student life story #phdstudents #tomandjerry #phd #phdlife
How to submit research article in Elsevier
Procedure to Submit Application for the National Science Olympiad
How to submit a research article to a journal?
@aljazeeraenglish How to submit research paper/article in free journal|How to find free journal
What is The Importance of Research in Environmental Science

COMMENTS

Publish with Elsevier: Step by step
2. Prepare your paper for submission. Download our get published quick guide (opens in new tab/window), which outlines the essential steps in preparing a paper. (This is also available in Chinese (opens in new tab/window)). It is very important that you stick to the specific "guide for authors" of the journal to which you are submitting.
How to Publish a Research Paper: Your Step-by-Step Guide
3. Submit your article according to the journal's submission guidelines. Go to the "author's guide" (or similar) on the journal's website to review its submission requirements. Once you are satisfied that your paper meets all of the guidelines, submit the paper through the appropriate channels.
How to Publish a Research Paper
Submit your paper: Once you have completed your research paper, submit it to the journal following their submission guidelines. Wait for the review process: Your paper will undergo a peer-review process, where experts in your field will evaluate your work. Be patient during this process, as it can take several weeks or even months.
How to Publish a Research Paper: A Step-by-Step Guide
Step 4: Navigating the Peer-Review Process . Once you submit your research paper to a journal, it undergoes a rigorous peer-review process to ensure its quality and validity. In peer-review, experts in your field assess your research and provide feedback and suggestions for improvement, ultimately determining whether your paper is eligible for ...
Understanding the Publishing Process
The publication process explained. The path to publication can be unsettling when you're unsure what's happening with your paper. Learn about staple journal workflows to see the detailed steps required for ensuring a rigorous and ethical publication. Your team has prepared the paper, written a cover letter and completed the submission form.
PDF APA Guide to Preparing Manuscripts for Journal Publication
Introduction. This guide provides an overview of the process of preparing and submitting a scholarly manuscript for publication in a psychology journal. Drawing on the experiences of authors of scholarly writings, peer reviewers, and journal editors, we seek to demystify the publication process and to offer advice designed to improve a ...
How to Write and Publish a Research Paper for a Peer ...
Communicating research findings is an essential step in the research process. Often, peer-reviewed journals are the forum for such communication, yet many researchers are never taught how to write a publishable scientific paper. In this article, we explain the basic structure of a scientific paper and describe the information that should be included in each section. We also identify common ...
How to publish an article?
If you plan to submit an article to one of our journals, or have any questions during the publication process, this helpdesk will guide you through manuscript submission, production and the services you can expect after your article's publication. ... 90% of Springer Nature journal authors rated their overall experience with the publication ...
How do I publish my article with Elsevier?
Select ' Submit your article ' on the homepage of the journal you would like to publish in. This option may not always be available as some journals do not accept submissions. Sign in to Editorial Manager, or register if you are a first-time user. Follow the steps to submit your article. After submitting your article, use the reference number ...
Submit your paper
3. Submit and revise. You can submit to most Elsevier journals using our online systems. The system you use will depend on the journal to which you submit. You can access the relevant submission system via the "submit your paper" link on the Elsevier.com journal homepage of your chosen journal. Alternatively, if you have been invited to submit ...
How to Write and Publish a Research Paper for a Peer-Reviewed Journal
The introduction section should be approximately three to five paragraphs in length. Look at examples from your target journal to decide the appropriate length. This section should include the elements shown in Fig. 1. Begin with a general context, narrowing to the specific focus of the paper.
How to Write a Research Paper
Develop a thesis statement. Create a research paper outline. Write a first draft of the research paper. Write the introduction. Write a compelling body of text. Write the conclusion. The second draft. The revision process. Research paper checklist.
How to publish your research
Step 1: Choosing a journal. Why choose your target journal before you start writing? Choosing which journal to publish your research paper in is one of the most significant decisions you have to make as a researcher. Where you decide to submit your work can make a big difference to the reach and impact your research has.
Preparing and submitting your paper
Submitting your paper. The Instructions for Contributors document for each journal will explain the process for submitting your paper to that particular title, including guidance on additional information you should include alongside your manuscript. A growing proportion of our journals now use an online submission system - in most cases ...
Successful Scientific Writing and Publishing: A Step-by-Step Approach
Publications share new research, results, and methods in a trusted format and advance scientific knowledge and practice (1,7). ... Submitting the paper initially to a journal more focused on the paper's target audience may result in a greater chance of acceptance, as well as more timely dissemination of findings that can be translated into ...
Submitting your paper
Submitting a paper. Make sure you have prepared your paper according to the instructions for authors. Double-check the journal's requirements with your article to be certain. If you need to include a cover letter with your submission, you should address the editor by formal name (e.g. Dear Professor Name---) and include the name of the ...
Preparing and Publishing a Scientific Manuscript
B ACKGROUND. The publication of original research in a peer-reviewed and indexed journal is the ultimate and most important step toward the recognition of any scientific work.However, the process starts long before the write-up of a manuscript. The journal in which the author wishes to publish his/her work should be chosen at the time of conceptualization of the scientific work based on the ...
How to Write and Publish a Research Paper in 7 Steps
6. Check and Double-Check. As a final step before submission, ask colleagues to read your work and be constructively critical. Make sure that the paper is appropriate for the journal - take a last look at their aims and scope. Check if all of the requirements in the instructions for authors are met.
Publish Your Research Articles
How to Publish. Submit your Research. Articles are published rapidly as soon as they are accepted, after passing a series of prepublication checks to assess originality, readability, author eligibility, and compliance with Routledge Open Research's policies and ethical guidelines. Peer review by invited experts, suggested by the authors ...
How to Write a Research Proposal
Writing a research proposal can be quite challenging, but a good starting point could be to look at some examples. We've included a few for you below. Example research proposal #1: "A Conceptual Framework for Scheduling Constraint Management" Example research proposal #2: "Medical Students as Mediators of Change in Tobacco Use" Title page
How to Write an APA Methods Section
How to Write an APA Methods Section | With Examples. Published on February 5, 2021 by Pritha Bhandari.Revised on June 22, 2023. The methods section of an APA style paper is where you report in detail how you performed your study. Research papers in the social and natural sciences often follow APA style.
Abstract submission policies
An invited paper is expected to have 30 minutes for presentation time, plus six minutes for a question and answer session. Technical and non-technical invited submissions. If you are submitting an invited abstract, you may also submit one additional abstract of a non-technical nature, such as on education, history of physics or public policy.
How to Write a Research Paper
You can adjust this outline to fit your research findings better and ensure that your paper remains well-organized and focused. 5. Write a Rough Draft. Once your outline is in place, you can begin the writing process. Remember, when you write a rough draft, it isn't meant to be perfect.
2024 Call for High School Projects
Review process: Each submission will be reviewed by anonymous referees. The authors, however, should not be anonymous. No written feedback will be provided to the authors. Use of Large Language Models (LLMs): We welcome authors to use any tool that is suitable for preparing high-quality papers and research. However, we ask authors to keep in ...
Cultural Relativity and Acceptance of Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Voices in Bioethics is currently seeking submissions on philosophical and practical topics, both current and timeless. Papers addressing access to healthcare, the bioethical implications of recent Supreme Court rulings, environmental ethics, data privacy, cybersecurity, law and bioethics, economics and bioethics, reproductive ethics, research ethics, and pediatric bioethics are sought.
NeurIPS 2024 Call for Papers
Call For Papers. Abstract submission deadline: May 15, 2024. Full paper submission deadline, including technical appendices and supplemental material (all authors must have an OpenReview profile when submitting): May 22, 2024 01:00 PM PDT or. Author notification: Sep 25, 2024. Camera-ready, poster, and video submission: Oct 30, 2024 AOE.
Using ideas from game theory to improve the reliability of language
MIT researchers' "consensus game" is a game-theoretic approach for language model decoding. The equilibrium-ranking algorithm harmonizes generative and discriminative querying to enhance prediction accuracy across various tasks, outperforming larger models and demonstrating the potential of game theory in improving language model consistency and truthfulness.
Untangling the environmental and tectonic drivers of the Noto ...
Data and materials availability: All data needed to evaluate the conclusions in the paper are present in the paper and/or the Supplementary Materials. Hi-net seismic data required in the paper are available from the National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention (NIED; www.hinet.bosai.go.jp).

How to Write and Publish Your Research in a Journal

Choosing a Journal

Things You Should Know

Expert Q&A

About This Article

Reader Success Stories

Did this article help you?

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

How to Publish a Research Paper – Step by Step Guide

How to Publish a Research Paper

How to Choose Journal for Research Paper Publication

List of Journals for Research Paper Publications

List of Conferences for Research Paper Publications

How to Publish a Research Paper in Journal

How to Publish a Research Paper for Students

How to Publish a Research Paper for Free

Journals and Conferences for Free Research Paper publications

Importance of Research Paper Publication

Advantages of Research Paper Publication

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

You may also like

How to Cite Research Paper – All Formats and...

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Paper Format – Types, Examples and...

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Research Paper Title – Writing Guide and Example

Research Paper Introduction – Writing Guide and...

How to Publish a Research Paper: A Step-by-Step Guide

Jordan Kruszynski

Understanding the Publishing Process

Step 1: Preparing Your Research Paper

Step 2: Finding the Right Journal

Step 3: Crafting a Strong Manuscript

Step 4: Navigating the Peer-Review Process

Step 5: Submitting Your Paper

Step 6: Dealing with Rejections and Revising Your Paper

Final Thoughts

Table of Contents

Behind the Scenes: What Does a Research Assistant Do?

How to Write a Research Paper Introduction: Hook, Line, and Sinker

Discover more from Audemic: Access any academic research via audio

Understanding the Publishing Process

What’s happening with my paper? The publication process explained

Internal Checks on New Submissions

Peer Review

Revision Decision

Revised Submission Received

Subsequent Peer Review

Preliminary Acceptance

Formal Acceptance and Publication

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

Cite this article

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature reviews as independent studies: guidelines for academic practice

How to design bibliometric research: an overview and a framework proposal

Plagiarism in research

Introduction

Select a Target Journal Early in the Writing Process

Identify Author Roles Early in the Process

Structure of the Introduction Section

Methods Section

Results Section

Discussion Section

Follow the Journal’s Author Guidelines

Data Availability

Acknowledgments

Code Availability

Author information

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Additional information

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

How to publish an article? – Step by step

1. Before you start