Boil the Ocean: No Apologies for Setting the Standard High!

“Quality is not an act; it is a habit.”—Aristotle

How do we improve the quality of our manuscripts? There is no easy answer. Some key aspects include formulating an appropriate research question, maintaining methodological rigor throughout the research process, and using a scientific writing style. To conceptualize research worthy of study involves carrying out a meticulous literature search to identify knowledge gaps, assess prior work in the field, acknowledge the limitations of those studies, and outline plans to overcome some of the limitations. Once a good research question is finalized, the next step is to prepare the recipe or blueprint for the conduct of research, that is, developing the study protocol. This involves planning the study design, selecting the appropriate sample, determining measurement plans, outlining the steps of the study, and finally, devising a plan of analysis of the obtained data. Once these steps are carried out maintaining scientific rigor, one can write down the findings as a manuscript.

Scientific manuscript writing is an art that can be learned through practice. Many individuals do not write thinking it is a challenging task. However, one cannot learn scientific writing without writing one (as one cannot learn to swim without getting into the water). Nevertheless, beginners can learn the basics of scientific writing by studying well-written manuscripts and “how to write” instructional books. Several texts have been written about improving scientific writing ranging from classic books to comprehensive guides. Considering the availability of these resources, one may question the need for developing additional material for the readers.

When I was given an opportunity to contribute a column on publication tips for the Kerala Journal of Psychiatry (KJP) by the editor, Shahul Ameen, I readily agreed. Initially, I wrote a series of articles myself, and later with Shahul Ameen (after he left KJP) on various aspects of scientific writing,^1–13 with a specific focus on addressing the problems in research and writing that we observed in the submitted or published papers in Indian journals. We noticed several of these problems unique to the Indian setting, hence providing suggestions for improving scientific writing, addressing both the scientific and the language aspects. Some examples of common errors in manuscripts and how to avoid them are listed in Table 1.

Table 1.

Common Errors in Manuscripts.

	Errors	How to Avoid
	Introduction
1.	Long introduction section, with unnecessary details.	Should not be more than 3 to 4 paragraphs. Don’t copy-paste literature reviews from the thesis.
2.	Pedantic style of writing (e.g. describing each study one after the other).	Use synthetic style (e.g. Some studies suggest that…whereas others…) which improves readability.
3.	Objectives and hypotheses are not clearly stated.	Objectives should be clear, concise, and accurate. State primary and secondary objectives if relevant.
	Methods
4.	The study design is not mentioned or incorrectly written.	Mention study design early. Avoid unclear expressions (e.g. retrospective or prospective).
5.	The sampling strategy is not correctly mentioned.	Clearly mention the target population and sampling method. Random sampling is different than randomization.
6.	The properties of the measurement tools are not mentioned.	Mention clearly if any tool was translated or adapted. If so, mention the properties of the translated or adapted tool (not of the original one).
7.	Details of statistical analysis not mentioned.	Mention which test is used to analyze which variable. For regression analyses, mention the independent and dependent variables.
	Results
8.	Inadequate description of the sample.	Describe the sample characteristics (demographic and clinical) in detail (usually in the first table).
9.	Too precise values (e.g. mean age 28.372, SD 3.426 years).	Round off values while reporting (e.g. mean age 28.4, SD 3.4 years). P values can be rounded off to 3 digits after the decimal (e.g. P = 0.004 instead of P = 0.00435).
10.	Including content other than the results.	Don’t include details of statistical tests here (should be part of methods). Don’t interpret the findings here (should be part of the discussion).
11.	Errors in tables and graphs.	Check the data in tables for correctness. Use correct graphs for the data. Avoid 3-D graphs. Check for zero baselines in graphs.
	Discussion
12.	Starts with a discussion of the sample or a theoretical proposition.	Start the discussion with the main findings of the study (answer to the primary objective). Compare and contrast with previous studies.
13.	Presenting new information not included in the results.	Only discuss the findings included under the results. Don’t discuss something not included in the results.
	References
14.	Errors in references while using reference managers.	Check manually and correct as per the journal format. Most reference managers extract data from sources that have errors.
15.	Not mentioning complete surnames (e.g. Samir KP, instead of Samir Kumar Praharaj) during submission.	Published papers, citations, and databases will have incorrect names (e.g. PSK, instead of Praharaj SK).

My association with the Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine provided me with an opportunity to closely observe and actively involve in scientific writing and editing. The editorial team has a responsibility to improve the quality of the journal, not through unfair means, but by improving the quality of the published manuscripts. One approach was to raise the standard for the manuscripts accepted for publication focusing on aspects such as novelty, methodological rigor, ethical aspects of research, and the quality of the write-up. We did not compromise on design errors or serious methodological flaws. While language errors could be corrected by effective editing, errors in research methods were non-negotiable. Adding a further step of post-peer review editorial review, we could identify errors in manuscripts that were missed during initial screening and peer review. ¹⁴ To improve the journal’s quality, additional steps were taken including a change in publisher, refining the appearance of the manuscripts, revising the various sections within the journal, and improving the overall design.

Indeed, conducting good research is a prerequisite for high-quality manuscripts. Hence, it is essential not to compromise on the quality of the research itself. However, it is possible that poor manuscripts can arise out of good quality research, which can be addressed. The KJP columns^1–13 provide guidance for those who are hesitant or apprehensive about conducting research or scientific writing. However, it is crucial to remember the golden rule: the best way to be proficient in scientific writing is through practice—by writing more manuscripts. With each manuscript written the confidence grows, and learning continues. By setting the standards high one can make significant strides in scientific writing.