1 / 30

URM and IMRAD format

URM and IMRAD format. Vancouver group. 1978, Vancouver, Canada Uniform submission Make life easier for authors No rejection on grounds of style. Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Manuscript Preparation Preparing a Manuscipt for Submission to Biomedical Journals

radley
Download Presentation

URM and IMRAD format

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. URM and IMRAD format

  2. Vancouver group • 1978, Vancouver, Canada • Uniform submission • Make life easier for authors • No rejection on grounds of style

  3. Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts • Manuscript Preparation • Preparing a Manuscipt for Submission to Biomedical Journals • Sending the Manuscript to the Journal • References • Print References Cited in this Document • Other Sources of Information Related to Biomedical Journals

  4. Parts of an essay Beginning Main Body End

  5. Sir Bradford Hill’s Questions • Why did you start? • What did you do? • What did you find? and • What does it all mean?

  6. Parts of a paper: IMRAD I Introduction M Methods R Results a and D Discussion

  7. Sir Bradford Hill’s Questions I Introduction Why did you start? M Methods What did you do? R Results What did you find? A and D Discussion What does it all mean?

  8. Introduction Why did you start? Readers’ expectations • Sufficient background information • Understand and evaluate the results • Without referring to previous publications Concise, adequate Not a review

  9. Introduction • Review pertinent literature • Define lacunae in current knowledge • Provide rationale for your study • What gap in knowledge did you try to fill? • What controversy did you try to resolve? • State the aim of the study

  10. Introduction • Brief, clear, to the point • Written in present tense • May state the study group, study design and methods used

  11. Introduction • Key references: to support background information • Refer to • your previous preliminary work • your own closely related papers • Define any specialized terms, definitions or abbreviations you intend to use

  12. Example We wish to suggest a structure for the salt of deoxyribose nucleic acid (D.N.A.). This structure has novel features which are of considerable biological importance. Watson JD, Crick FHC. A structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid. Nature 1953; 171: 737-8.

  13. Methods What did you do?

  14. Methods • What all was done? • How was it done? • When was it done? • Who did it ? • How were the results analyzed? • Did you have ethical clearance to do so?

  15. Methods • Present methods in chronological order • Subheadings should match those in results ‘internal consistency’ • In past tense • Be precise

  16. Methods: checklist • Does it describe • What questions was being asked? • What was being tested? • How reliable was the measurement? • Were the parameters recorded and analyzed correctly? • Would a reader be able to repeat the same experiment?

  17. Results What did you find? Answers

  18. Results: Before writing • Collate data • Prepare master tables • Re-check accuracy • Analyse • List all the findings • Identify the important ones

  19. Results: The components • Text Story • Tables Meat • Figures Drama

  20. Results • Results of all experiments in natural order in subsections similar to methods • Do not duplicate information text, tables, figures • Statistical analysis

  21. Results • Should not include • Any methods • Data for which methods are not included • Interpretation of data • References

  22. Results: Tables Table I. Parts of a table Footnote: BODY

  23. Results: Table or figure • Prefer tables • Use figures only for illustrative • Bar, histogram, pie: ? table Difference in written and oral communication

  24. Results: Text or Tables • Number of items • Few variables: Text • Many variables: Table

  25. Intraperitoneal inoculation of 1 X 106 DLA cells (day 0) Treatment (d 1,2,3) Observation 0 1 2 3 4 30 Days Group 1 Vehicle Group 2 Total alkaloid fraction (5 mg/Kg/d) Group 3 Total alkaloid fraction (10 mg/Kg/d) Group 4 Total alkaloid fraction (20 mg/Kg/d) Group 5 Methotrexate (3.4 mg/Kg/d) (Positive control) Figure: in place of text Study design

  26. Figure: not in place of table

  27. Summary • URM • IMRAD • Introduction • Methods • Results and • Discussion

More Related