Writing resources
AUCTORES Writing Resources
Welcome to AUCTORES Writing Resources, your guide to writing and publishing a scientific manuscript. Use the links provided on this page to explore guidance on specific topics. Overview
Why Publish in English?
English is the international language of science. Publishing in English allows your research to reach the widest possible audience, helping you achieve the core goal of scientific communication: sharing your findings to advance understanding worldwide. For authors whose first language is not English, this may present additional challenges, but the benefits of global reach are substantial.
Why is Good Writing Important?
Good writing clearly communicates your research. Scientists are busy, and if a manuscript is difficult to read or poorly structured, it may be overlooked or cited less frequently. Writing well not only helps others understand your work but also enhances your own understanding of your research. Key points of high-quality, simple scientific writing:
• Increases the likelihood of acceptance for publication
• Enhances the impact of your manuscript within the research community
• Accelerates comprehension and recognition of your findings
• Builds reader confidence in the quality of your research Poorly written or overly complex manuscripts can frustrate readers, reviewers, and editors, and can hinder the clear communication of important scientific concepts.
Professional Editing Services
Presenting your work in well-structured, polished English ensures that editors and reviewers can fairly assess your research. Many authors benefit from independent support to showcase their results effectively. AUCTORES recommends professional services for:
• Manuscript preparation and formatting
• English language editing
• Developmental comments and figure preparation
• Translation and other author support We also provide a free Grammar Check tool to evaluate your manuscript. Note: Using these services is optional and does not guarantee acceptance or peer review.
What Do Journal Editors Want?
Journal Editors assess submissions and consider peer reviewers’ evaluations, ultimately deciding what gets published. Understanding their priorities can help maximize your manuscript’s chances of acceptance. Editors look for manuscripts that:
• Present research that advances the field
• Are carefully prepared and correctly formatted
• Use clear, concise language
• Adhere to ethical standards Before you begin Authorship Structuring your manuscript Reporting Guidelines Writing titles and abstracts Background Results Data presentation Figure types File Formats Additional Files Sharing your data, materials and software Methods Trial Registration Discussion and Conclusions References Overcoming Language Barriers Publication Ethics Competing Interests Cover Letters Peer Review Author Tips Sharing your work Communicating research through blogs
Before you begin
Study Design
A strong study design is essential for producing publishable results. When planning your experiment or research project, consider the following:
• What is your hypothesis or research question?
• What are the aims and objectives of your study?
• Which methods are best suited to achieve your aims?
• Do you have the necessary resources to carry out your methods?
• Which positive and negative controls will you include?
• Have you obtained all required ethical and regulatory approvals? For example, studies involving human participants generally require approval from your institution’s review board.
• Will your study have sufficient statistical power to yield meaningful results? Is your sample size adequate to draw valid conclusions? Which statistical tests will you use? Consult a statistician if necessary—they can provide expert guidance that may save you considerable time.
Reference Managers
Reference management software helps organize and format citations, manage libraries of PDFs and images, and streamline manuscript preparation. Proper use of reference managers ensures accurate citation and saves time when submitting to journals. Some widely used reference management tools include:
• BibTeX
• EndNote
• Mendeley
• Papers
• RefWorks
• Zotero When using a reference manager, ensure you have the correct style file for your target journal. Formatting references with the appropriate style file is straightforward. For journal-specific guidance, see the AUCTORES journal submission guidelines.
Choosing a Target Journal
Selecting the right journal for your manuscript is a crucial step. Choosing a journal aligned with your research topic increases the likelihood of acceptance and ensures your work reaches the appropriate audience. Use our journal finder tool on the AUCTORES website to identify relevant journals for your research.
Authorship
Authorship provides credit for a researcher’s contributions and carries accountability. At AUCTORES, authors are expected to meet the following criteria (adapted from McNutt et al., Proc Natl Acad Sci, 2018; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1715374115; CC BY 4.0):
An author must:
1. Make substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; or the creation of new software used in the work; or draft or substantially revise the manuscript.
2. Approve the submitted version and any substantially modified versions that involve their contribution.
3. Agree to be accountable for their own contributions and to ensure that questions regarding the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work—even those outside their direct involvement—are appropriately investigated, resolved, and documented. AUCTORES encourages collaboration with colleagues at research sites and expects their inclusion as co-authors when they meet all authorship criteria. Contributors who do not meet all criteria should be listed in the Acknowledgements section. For journal-specific instructions on listing author contributions, refer to the journal’s Submission Guidelines.
Changes to Authorship
Any changes to the author list after submission—including addition, deletion, or reordering of authors—require approval from all authors and completion of an authorship change form. Changes are not permitted after acceptance of the manuscript. Corresponding Authors Corresponding authors are responsible for:
• Ensuring all authors approve the manuscript before submission, including author names, order, and content.
• Communicating with editors and sharing all substantive correspondence, reviews, and manuscript materials with co-authors.
• Ensuring transparency and reproducibility, including verification of all data, figures, materials, and code.
• Preserving original data and materials so they are retrievable for reanalysis.
• Accurately presenting all data, figures, materials, and code.
• Minimizing obstacles to sharing data, materials, or code as described in the work. Corresponding authors should disclose any use of editorial services that might constitute a conflict of interest, such as professional editors with a vested interest or technical writers contributing at authorship level. Assistance from scientific or medical writers must be acknowledged, including source of funding, following EMWA guidelines, either in the Acknowledgements or Authors’ Contributions section. The corresponding author must also document any changes to the author list between manuscript versions, ensuring that all deserving contributors are credited and no undeserving authors are listed. Any authorship disputes will be handled according to COPE guidelines.
Acknowledgements
All contributors who do not meet authorship criteria should be listed in an Acknowledgements section. This may include individuals who provided technical help, writing assistance, or general support.
Third-Party Submissions
All manuscripts must be submitted by an author. Submissions from third parties are not permitted.
Author Name Changes
Authors who have changed their name (e.g., for gender transition or religious conversion) may request updates to their name, pronouns, and other biographical information on previously published works. Authors may choose:
• A silent correction (no note on PDF or HTML versions)
• A formal public Author Correction For details and to request a name change, see the AUCTORES Support Contact Form: Inclusive Name Change Policy.
Structuring your manuscript
Guidance on manuscript structure for AUCTORES journals is available in the Instructions for Authors for each journal. The standard structure of a research article (after the Title and Abstract) typically includes:
• Background
• Methods
• Results
• Discussion
• Conclusion Purpose of Article Structure A well-structured manuscript:
• Provides a logical flow to your content
• Makes manuscripts predictable and easy to read
• Acts as a “map” so readers can quickly find sections of interest
• Reminds authors of the key content to include
Writing Order vs. Published Order
Although manuscripts are published in the order: Title → Abstract → Background → Methods → Results → Discussion → Conclusion, this is not always the best order for writing. Many
authors find the following sequence more effective:
1. Materials and Methods – Document methods while conducting experiments.
2. Results – Record findings as they emerge.
3. Introduction – Write after Results to provide context for your study.
4. Discussion – Interpret results and relate them to the research field.
5. Conclusion – Summarize key findings and implications.
6. Title and Abstract – Draft these last, once the manuscript is complete. Writing in this order helps produce a logical, consistent manuscript that clearly communicates your research.
Telling the Story of Your Research
Use the sections of your manuscript to tell a coherent story about your study, its findings, and its broader implications. A clear narrative guides readers through your research and highlights the significance of your work.
Reporting Guidelines
Providing a clear and complete account of your research is essential for ensuring that your work is understandable, reproducible, and valuable to the scientific community. Well-reported research allows editors, peer reviewers, and readers to fully comprehend your methods, results, and conclusions. Poorly reported studies can distort the literature and produce research that cannot be replicated or included in future meta-analyses or systematic reviews.
Key Principles
• Ensure that your manuscript clearly communicates exactly what you did, so that other researchers could replicate your study without needing additional information.
• Pay particular attention to the Methods section, providing sufficient detail to allow reproducibility.
Using Reporting Guidelines
Reporting guidelines are available for many study designs and provide checklists of essential points to include in your manuscript. Using these guidelines during manuscript preparation ensures that your work is complete, transparent, and aligned with best practices. In some cases, journals may require submission of a completed checklist alongside your manuscript. The EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research) Network is an international initiative that provides a comprehensive collection of reporting guidelines and resources to improve research reporting. Common Reporting Guidelines
Some widely used guidelines for different study types include:
• Randomized Controlled Trials: CONSORT
• Systematic Reviews: PRISMA
• Observational Studies: STROBE
• Case Reports: CARE
• Qualitative Research: COREQ
• Pre-clinical Animal Studies: ARRIVE Peer reviewers may use these checklists when assessing your manuscript. Following reporting guidelines helps editors and reviewers evaluate your work more efficiently, often resulting in fewer revision requests. Writing titles and abstracts
AUCTORES: Writing Effective Titles and Abstracts
The title and abstract are the most visible components of your article and play a crucial role in attracting readers and ensuring your research is discoverable. During peer review, potential reviewers often decide whether to assess a manuscript based solely on the title and abstract. After publication, the title and abstract are frequently the only parts read, making it essential that they are concise, accurate, and clear. Because most researchers rely on electronic search engines (such as PubMed or other databases that index only titles and abstracts), including key terms in these sections increases the likelihood that your article will be found by the appropriate audience.
Titles: Capturing Attention and Ensuring Discoverability
The title is a key tool for attracting readers, especially when abstracts are not indexed by databases. A good title should be accurate, informative, and complete.
Tips for Writing Titles:
• Use specific, descriptive terms (e.g., name the drug rather than its class).
• Use simple word order and common phrases (e.g., “juvenile delinquency” instead of “delinquency amongst juveniles”).
• Avoid abbreviations, acronyms, and initialisms that may have multiple meanings.
• Write scientific names in full (e.g., Escherichia coli instead of E. coli).
• Refer to chemicals by their common or generic names, not formulas.
• Avoid Roman numerals, which can be misinterpreted (e.g., “part III” could be mistaken for “factor III”).
Abstracts: Summarizing Key Information
The abstract should provide a concise summary of your study, highlighting the most important aspects of the research without excessive detail. It should clearly convey what was done and why, allowing readers to quickly understand the significance of your work. Tips for Writing Abstracts:
• Critically select the most important points from your manuscript.
• Consider asking a colleague unfamiliar with the work to review the abstract for clarity.
• Revise the abstract after the manuscript is complete to ensure consistency.
• Keep abstracts concise, ideally under 350 words.
Abstract Structure
Abstracts should generally follow a structured format to improve clarity for readers and reviewers. Structure may vary by journal and article type, so always consult the journal’s Instructions for Authors. For biology journals:
• Background: Contextualize the study and explain its purpose.
• Results: Summarize the main findings.
• Conclusions: Highlight the key outcomes and potential implications. For medical journals:
• Background: As above.
• Methods: Briefly describe study design, techniques, and statistical tests used.
• Results: As above.
• Conclusions: As above. Additional Abstract Writing Tips
• Include synonyms for key terms to improve discoverability.
• Use simple, clear language and common word combinations.
• Ensure that only points covered in the manuscript are included.
• Minimize abbreviations and avoid citing references. By crafting a clear, precise, and informative title and abstract, you increase the visibility, accessibility, and impact of your research. Background
AUCTORES: Background Section
The Background section provides readers with the context necessary to understand your study and explains why your research was conducted. Purpose of the Background The Background should clearly address the question: What problem or question is being studied?
When writing your Background, ensure your citations are:
• Balanced: Include studies with differing results if available, reflecting the range of findings in the field.
• Current: Aim to cite references that are no more than 10 years old whenever possible.
• Relevant: Focus on studies directly related to your research question. Do not write a literature review in the Background, but it is acceptable to cite reviews to guide readers who wish to explore the topic further. After presenting the background and identifying the research problem, clearly state the purpose of your study. Often, this involves addressing a gap in knowledge or answering a previously unanswered question. For example, a study may evaluate the efficacy of a drug in a new population that has not been previously tested. Finally, include a clear statement of the study aims, and optionally, a brief overview of how the study was conducted. Example
Reference:
Vandesompele J, De Preter K, Pattyn F, Poppe B, Van Roy N, De Paepe A, Speleman F. Accurate normalization of real-time quantitative RT-PCR data by geometric averaging of multiple internal control genes. Genome Biol. 2002;3:RESEARCH0034.
Background:
Gene-expression analysis is increasingly important in biological research. Understanding patterns of gene expression can provide insight into complex regulatory networks and may help identify genes involved in new biological processes or disease. Two methods for measuring transcript abundance have gained popularity: microarrays, which allow parallel analysis of thousands of genes in differentially labeled RNA populations, and real-time RT-PCR, which measures gene expression in many samples for a limited number of genes, particularly when cell numbers are small. Both methods offer speed, throughput, and potential automation compared to traditional techniques, but require normalization similar to conventional methods. Several variables must be controlled in gene-expression analysis, including starting material, enzymatic efficiency, and overall transcriptional activity differences across tissues or cells. Normalization strategies include RNA mass or internal control genes, but each approach has limitations. For example, RNA mass primarily represents rRNA, which may not reflect mRNA levels accurately, and rRNA transcription can be influenced by biological factors or drugs.
Statement of the Problem:
Internal control genes, often referred to as housekeeping genes, are commonly used for normalization. However, their expression can vary depending on tissue type or experimental treatment, and improper validation can compromise results. With the sensitivity and dynamic range of real-time RT-PCR, proper selection of internal controls is increasingly critical.
Purpose and Methods:
In this study, we evaluated 10 commonly used housekeeping genes across 13 human tissues. We developed a procedure to calculate a normalization factor based on multiple control genes for more accurate gene-expression data analysis. This normalization factor was then validated against frequently used microarray scaling factors using publicly available datasets. Results
AUCTORES: Results
Some journals allow Results and Discussion to be combined, while others require them as separate sections. You may break the Results section into subsections with short, informative headings for clarity. Always check the journal’s Instructions for Authors for specific formatting guidance.
Presenting Your Results
• Use subheadings to separate results from different experiments, similar to the Methods section.
• Present results in a logical order, generally by importance rather than the sequence in which experiments were performed.
• Use past tense to describe results, but refer to figures and tables in present tense.
• Avoid duplicating data across text, tables, and figures. Use the text to summarize key points rather than restate all data.
• Include statistical analyses in the text, such as p-values for significant differences. Example
Reference:
Hitesh N Appaiah, Chirayu P Goswami, Lida A Mina, Sunil Badve, George W Sledge, Yunlong Liu, Harikrishna Nakshatri. Persistent upregulation of U6:SNORD44 small RNA ratio in the serum of breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Research. 2011 Sep 13;13(5):R86. Results:
miRNA and Small RNA Expression Analyses
Previous studies showing the presence of miR-21 and miR-155 in the serum/plasma of cancer patients prompted evaluation of these RNAs in the sera of healthy subjects and breast cancer patients. U6, 5S, miR-16, RNU66, RNU48, and RNU19 were also analyzed to identify a small RNA suitable as a normalization control. RNU66, RNU48, and RNU19 were undetectable. miR- 16, one of the most abundant miRNAs in serum (average CT = 24), showed similar levels between healthy subjects and cancer patients (Table 4, Figure 1a).
Serum U6 and 5S in Relation to ER/PR and Nodal Status
The upregulation of U6 and 5S was examined across breast cancer subtypes. Among 36 tumors with known ER/PR status, 24 were ER/PR+ and 12 ER/PR-. U6 levels, but not 5S, were higher in ER/PR+ patients compared with healthy subjects, whether normalized with miR-16 or SNORD44 (Table 5, Figure 3). Patients with ER/PR- tumors also showed elevated U6 and 5S levels, though differences between subtypes were not statistically significant. miR-21 levels remained similar across groups.
U6 Levels in Sera of Breast Cancer Patients Regardless of Metastasis
Sera were collected from 15 healthy subjects, 15 disease-free breast cancer patients, and 15 patients with stage IV metastatic disease. RNA was prepared from equal volumes of serum, cDNA synthesized, and analyzed for U6, 5S, miR-21, and miR-16 levels. U6 levels were significantly elevated in disease-free patients compared with healthy subjects, both unnormalized (5.35-fold, P = 3.09 × 10⁻⁵) and normalized with SNORD44 (6.6-fold, P = 0.00028) (Table 6, Figure 4). Visualizing Your Results
A picture is often worth a thousand words. Figures and tables can convey findings more effectively than text alone. Best Practices:
• Include figures and tables that add value, not redundancy.
• Avoid duplicating the same data in multiple formats.
• Do not use figures/tables where text alone suffices, such as when only a few data points are present. Data presentation
AUCTORES: Figures, Tables, and Display Items
Figures, tables, and other visual display items are one of the most effective ways to communicate large amounts of complex information quickly. Many readers will often examine these elements without reading the full text. Well-designed display items enhance clarity, attract attention, and lend a professional appearance to your manuscript, increasing reader confidence in your results and interpretations. General Guidelines
• Use display items to clarify your findings and highlight key points.
• Ensure all figures and tables are high quality, accurate, and professionally presented.
• Attractive display items help engage readers and encourage them to explore your research further.
• Always check the specific formatting requirements of the journal to which you are submitting.
Figures and Illustrations
• Figures should improve clarity: Include diagrams, graphs, and images that make your data easy to interpret.
• Color figures are encouraged and usually free of charge.
• Figures in PDF manuscripts are placed sequentially at the end, whereas online versions link directly from the text.
• Authors are responsible for providing high-resolution figures suitable for final publication.
Preparing Figure Files
• Submit figures as separate files, not embedded in the manuscript.
• Each figure should be a single file. Multi-panel figures (a, b, c, etc.) should be combined into a single composite file.
• Tables should remain in the main manuscript, not as figures.
• Number figures in the order they are first mentioned in the text.
• Provide figure titles and legends in the manuscript, not inside the figure file.
• Individual figure files should not exceed 10 MB.
Permissions: If using previously published figures or images, obtain copyright permission and indicate it in the figure legend, including the original source in the reference list. Supported Figure Types and File Formats Common figure types:
• Line drawings and diagrams
• Charts and graphs
• Large plot graphs
• Photographs and medical images (X-rays, micrographs)
• Screenshots
• Genetic sequences and alignments
• 3D structures, chemical reaction schemes, gels, and blots Accepted file formats:
• Vector: PDF, EPS
• Images: TIFF, JPEG, PNG, BMP
• Molecular structures: CDX (ChemDraw), TGF (ISIS/Draw)
• Microsoft Office: Word, PowerPoint (single-page figures) Figure Size and Resolution
• Web: 600 pixels standard, 1200 pixels high-resolution
• PDF: 85 mm half-page, 170 mm full-page width; max height 225 mm including legend
• Resolution: ~300 dpi at final size
• Ensure text and lines are legible, with line width ≥ 0.5 pt and fonts embedded. File Compression:
• Vector images: PDF preferred
• TIFF: use LZW (lossless) compression
• JPEG: maximum quality
• Minimize format conversions to prevent loss of quality
Figure Legends
Include after the reference list, not in the figure file. Each legend should have:
• Figure number (Arabic numerals, e.g., Fig. 1)
• Short title (≤15 words)
• Optional detailed legend (≤300 words)
Example:
Fig. 3. Liver smear from a 6-week-old embryo (CR length 12 mm). Macrophages among primitive erythroblasts are visible (see also Fig. 4). H & E, ×1,150 (Scott 1974).
Chemical Schemes
• Include as part of the manuscript; use CDX format (ChemDraw).
• Legend format similar to figures: number, short title, optional detailed legend.
• Example: Scheme 1. Overview of glycolysis showing ATP production and NADH generation. The role of carnosine in modulating fructose 1,6-bisphosphatase is indicated.
Image Manipulation
• Minor digital adjustments (color, contrast, brightness) are acceptable if applied to the entire image.
• Avoid introducing artifacts or misrepresenting data.
• Retain original unmodified images for reviewer requests. Software Recommendations:
• Adobe Photoshop, GraphicConverter, PaintShop Pro
• Open-source: ImageMagick, GIMP, ImageJ Cropping Figures
• Crop to remove unnecessary white space.
• PowerPoint: Adjust page setup, then paste elements to match image dimensions.
• Word: Reduce margins, adjust page size to image dimensions.
• Bitmap images: Use MS Paint, Photoshop, or Corel Photo Paint.
• Vector images: Use Adobe Illustrator, CorelDRAW, or Freehand. PDF/EPS cropping maintains quality.
Common Questions
Large figures: Submit as additional files if they cannot fit a single page. Multipart figures (1a, 1b, 1c): Combine into a single composite image. Exceeding 10 MB: Use compression or convert to suitable formats like compressed TIFF or high-quality JPEG. Why separate figure files? Embedded images may lose resolution; separate files ensure quality in multiple article formats. For questions or assistance, contact the AUCTORES support team at editorial@auctoresonline.org.
Figure types
AUCTORES: Figure Types
Figures are an essential component of scientific manuscripts, allowing complex data to be communicated visually. Different types of figures require specific preparation methods to ensure clarity, accuracy, and reproducibility. Below are the main figure types and guidelines for preparing them for submission.
Vector Images
Vector figures are ideal for diagrammatic information such as line drawings, charts, graphs, and diagrams. They allow superior reproduction of lines and text elements, especially in printed versions. Key Guidelines:
• Supported formats: PDF, EPS, Microsoft Word (DOC), PowerPoint (PPT)
• Graphics/statistical software can usually save in PDF or EPS. Mac users can print to PDF directly; Windows users may use Adobe Acrobat or free alternatives like doPDF, PDFcreator, or PrimoPDF.
• Include graphical or photographic elements within the vector file if applicable.
• Incorporate keys/legends within the figure for accurate reproduction of color or patterns.
• Figures displaying amino acid or nucleotide sequences should follow the same vector guidelines. Ensure legibility for large, multiple sequence alignments.
• Final PDF display:
o Single column: 85 mm; double column: 176 mm
o Line width ≥ 0.5 pt
o Text size ≥ 8 pt
o Resolution ≥ 300 dpi
Bitmap Images
Bitmap figures are best for photographic content, including scans, X-rays, microscopy images, and screenshots. Key Guidelines:
• Submit original, high-resolution images (JPEG, TIFF, PNG).
• Capture images at maximum quality to avoid compression artifacts.
• Do not artificially increase resolution—original image quality determines final clarity.
• Final image resolution: ≥ 300 dpi at single (85 mm) or double column (176 mm) width.
• Include scale bars when appropriate.
• Explanatory elements such as text, arrows, or annotations can be added using graphics software or overlaid in Word/PPT, then submitted as PDF, DOC, or PPT. Avoid reconverting to TIFF, JPEG, or PNG to prevent quality loss.
Special considerations:
• Patient photographs/X-rays: Obtain written and signed consent; anonymize patient identity by editing the image itself.
• Micrographs: Include magnification, staining methods, microscope and camera details, and any image processing performed in the legend or Methods section.
3D Atomic Structures
Figures representing stereoscopic 3D structures, such as protein models, require precise preparation:
• Stereo pair separation: ≤ 60 mm
• Include instructions for viewing distance
• Submit images at the final intended print size Electrophoretic Gels and Blots
Gels and blots must accurately represent experimental results:
• Include positive/negative controls, molecular size markers, and loading controls.
• Do not electronically enhance or manipulate images. Any adjustments must maintain the original data integrity.
• Cropping to improve clarity is allowed but must be explained in the legend; important bands must be included. Full gels/blots should be provided as additional data files.
• Non-adjacent lanes displayed together must be clearly separated and noted in the legend.
• Reference previously characterized antibodies. For less-known reagents, specify antibody specificity and assay reactivity.
• Explicitly state in legends if quantitative comparisons are made between gels or blots from different experiments. File Formats
AUCTORES: File Formats
High-quality figure preparation depends on selecting the appropriate file format. Different formats are suited to different types of data, including vector graphics, photographic images, and chemical structures. Below is a guide to commonly used file formats and best practices for their use.
EPS – Encapsulated PostScript
EPS is ideal for vector images generated in applications such as Adobe Illustrator or CorelDRAW. While EPS supports high-quality line and text reproduction, it tends to produce larger file sizes. PDF is generally preferred as a more modern and compact alternative. Key points:
• Crop EPS images using the original software.
• If cropping is problematic, EPS can be rasterized (converted to bitmap) in Photoshop, then cropped and saved as TIFF or JPEG, though rasterization increases file size and may reduce quality.
PDF – Portable Document Format
PDF is a versatile format that supports both vector and bitmap elements, making it suitable for most figures.
Key points:
• Create high-resolution PDFs (≥ 300 dpi at final figure size) and embed all non-standard fonts.
• Compatible with Acrobat 5.0 or later (PDF version 1.4).
• Do not password-protect PDF files.
• Crop using Adobe Acrobat: select Crop Pages from the Document menu or use the crop tool.
• If cropping fails, PDF figures can be rasterized and saved as TIFF or JPEG, though this may reduce quality.
DOC – Microsoft Word
Word is a convenient option for figures combining vector and bitmap elements, particularly for authors without specialized graphics software. Excel charts can be embedded in Word.
Key points:
• Prepare in Word version 5 or later, single-page figures.
• Upload directly; do not convert to JPEG or other bitmap formats.
• Ensure embedded artwork has sufficient resolution (~300 dpi at final figure size).
• Crop using Page Setup: adjust margins to zero and resize the page to match the image.
PPT – PowerPoint
PowerPoint can also be used for figures containing both vector and bitmap elements.
Key points:
• Figures must occupy a single slide. Avoid unnecessary background colors or slide titles.
• Upload directly without converting to JPEG.
• Ensure embedded artwork has sufficient resolution (~300 dpi at final figure size).
• Crop by adjusting slide dimensions and repositioning figure elements.
TIFF – Tagged Image File Format
TIFF is a lossless bitmap format suitable for photographs, scanned images, and microscopy.
Key points:
• Save TIFFs with LZW compression to reduce file size without losing quality.
• Cropping can be performed using photo or graphics editing software by selecting the area of interest and using the Crop function. Consult your software documentation for details.
JPEG – Joint Photographic Experts Group
JPEG is a lossy bitmap format, suitable for photographs, micrographs, and autoradiographs. Key points:
• Always save at maximum quality to minimize artifacts.
• Avoid resaving low-quality JPEGs at higher settings—it increases file size but does not improve image quality.
• Not recommended for line art, screenshots, or flat-color images; TIFF or PNG is preferred.
• Crop using photo or graphics software as described above.
PNG – Portable Network Graphics
PNG is a modern lossless bitmap format, suitable for photographs, line art, or screenshots. Key points:
• Supports flat colors and transparency.
• Ideal for web display as well as print.
• Crop using standard photo or graphics editing software. Consult documentation for details.
BMP – Bitmap
BMP is a standard Microsoft bitmap format suitable for photographic or scanned images. Key points:
• Less compact than TIFF, PNG, or JPEG.
• Crop using photo or graphics editing software. Consult documentation for details. CDX – ChemDraw CDX is the native ChemDraw format for chemical reaction schemes. Suggested settings:
• Chain Angle: 120°
• Bond Spacing: 18%
• Fixed Length: 0.406 cm (11.5 pt)
• Bold Width: 0.056 cm (1.6 pt)
• Line Width: 0.018 cm (0.5 pt)
• Margin Width: 0.046 cm (1.3 pt)
• Hash Spacing: 0.071 cm (2 pt)
TGF – ISIS/Draw
TGF is the native file format for chemical schemes prepared using ISIS/Draw.
Additional Files
AUCTORES: Additional Files
Additional files allow authors to provide supplementary material that supports or expands upon the main manuscript. They are integral to the publication and enhance the transparency, reproducibility, and value of research.
Guidelines for Using Additional Files
• Purpose: Additional files contain data, tables, figures, movies, software, or other materials referenced in the manuscript. Files that would otherwise be labeled as “data not shown” should be included as additional files.
• Visibility: Additional files are linked to the published article in their original form but are not displayed within the main text.
• File Size: Maximum file size per additional file is 20 MB. Larger datasets should be deposited in an appropriate permanent repository (e.g., GEO for microarray data).
• Referencing: Each file should be numbered sequentially (e.g., Additional file 1) and explicitly referenced in the manuscript (e.g., “See Supplementary Table 1, Additional File 1”). Important: All supplementary data must be included as additional files rather than links to external websites to prevent broken URLs.
Inserting and Referencing Additional Files
For each additional file, provide the following information in a separate section after the reference list:
1. File name (e.g., Additional file 1)
2. File format with extension (include a URL for unusual formats)
3. Title of data
4. Description of data Files should be numbered in the order they are first cited and uploaded in that sequence. File Formats for Additional Files
1. Additional Documentation & Algorithms
Formats: PDF, DOC, TXT, RTF, EPS, HTML, PPT
2. Animations & Movies Formats: MP4, MPEG, MOV, AVI, SWF, animated GIF
• First frame serves as a poster frame for preview.
• MOV: Proprietary Apple format compatible with Mac and Windows.
• MPG: MPEG-1 or MPEG-2 format with audio/video compression.
• AVI: Supports synchronized audio-video playback.
3. Audio Formats: WAV, MP3, FLAC, AIFF, AU
• WAV is standard for raw, uncompressed audio on Windows.
4. Chemical Structures
• CDX (ChemDraw): Save chemical reaction schemes in CDX with recommended settings:
o Chain Angle: 120°
o Bond Spacing: 18%
o Fixed Length: 0.406 cm (11.5 pt)
o Bold Width: 0.056 cm (1.6 pt)
o Line Width: 0.018 cm (0.5 pt)
o Margin Width: 0.046 cm (1.3 pt)
o Hash Spacing: 0.071 cm (2 pt)
• TGF (ISIS/Draw): Used for chemical schemes prepared in ISIS/Draw.
5. Computational Models
• Recommended format: SBML (Systems Biology Markup Language) for biochemical networks.
6. Generic Data Files
• DAT: Application-specific data files; may require the original software to open.
7. Geospatial Data
• KML: XML-based format for geographic data, suitable for 2D/3D visualization. Viewable in Google Earth.
8. Genomic Sequences
• Follow Genomic Standards Consortium (GSC) guidelines (MIGS).
• Deposit sequences in INSDC before submission and provide accession numbers in the manuscript.
9. Metabolic Networks
• Common formats: KML, BioPAX, SBML, PSI-MI, SIF, XML, KGML
10. Microarray Data
• Follow MIAME or MINSEQE guidelines.
• Preferred format: MAGE-TAB with an accompanying MIAME checklist.
11. Mini-Websites
• Must be self-contained, browsable from HTML full-text:
o Root file: index.html
o All supporting files included in folder/subfolders
o Links must be relative and <255 characters
o Compress folder into ZIP (<20 MB) with index.html in root
12. Tabular Data
• Supported formats: DAT, TXT, XLS, CSV, XML, TSV
Best Practices
• Enhancement of images using software is allowed if done responsibly, without introducing artifacts.
• Items within additional files can be referenced in the manuscript (e.g., “See Additional File 1”).
• Previous versions of the manuscript cannot be submitted as additional files.
• References can be included in additional files but should not appear in the main manuscript unless cited there. Sharing your data, materials and software
AUCTORES: Sharing Your Data, Materials, and Software
By submitting your manuscript to an AUCTORES journal, authors agree to make the raw data, materials, and software described in their manuscript freely available to other researchers for
non-commercial purposes, provided this does not violate participant confidentiality or other legal restrictions.
Data Availability
• Authors are strongly encouraged to make all datasets supporting the conclusions of the manuscript publicly accessible.
• Data can be shared via:
o Public repositories (where appropriate)
o Inclusion in the main manuscript or as additional files
• Biological materials (e.g., plasmids, mutant strains, cell lines) should ideally be deposited in established public repositories.
• Any new software or custom code should be archived in a repository with a DOI or other unique identifier. Mandatory data deposition: Some journals require that all underlying data be publicly deposited. Authors should check the journal’s instructions to confirm requirements.
Availability of Data and Materials Section
• Manuscripts must include an “Availability of Data and Materials” section describing where supporting data can be accessed.
• If data cannot be shared, the manuscript must state the reason.
• All publicly available datasets should be fully referenced in the manuscript’s reference list, including accession numbers or unique identifiers (e.g., DOI), in accordance with the FAIR Data and Force11 Data Citation Principles.
• Recommended repositories by subject and data type are listed in AUCTORES editorial policies. For questions regarding repository suitability, authors should contact the journal editor.
Clinical Data
• Clinical datasets must respect participants’ privacy and confidentiality.
• Ideally, informed consent for dataset publication should be obtained at recruitment.
• If consent cannot be obtained, authors must ensure that publication does not compromise anonymity or breach local data protection laws.
• Authors must evaluate whether datasets contain direct or indirect identifiers and consult local ethics committees if participant anonymity could be at risk.
Software and Code
• Any new software application or custom code should be accessible for testing by reviewers while preserving reviewer anonymity.
• The manuscript should describe in the Availability of Data and Materials section how reviewers can access the software or code, including:
o Link to the most recent version (e.g., GitHub, SourceForge)
o Link to the archived version referenced in the article (e.g., via Zenodo)
• Published software or tools should be freely available for non-commercial use, without restrictions such as material transfer agreements.
• If free access is not possible, the manuscript should focus on the underlying method rather than the software tool itself. Methods
AUCTORES: Methods
The Methods section provides readers with a detailed description of how your study was conducted. Clear, precise, and reproducible methodology is essential for transparency and scientific rigor.
Key Guidelines
1. Use subheadings to separate different aspects of your methodology, making it easier for readers to navigate.
2. Describe actions in the past tense to reflect completed work.
3. New methods should be described in sufficient detail to allow replication by other researchers.
4. Previously published methods can be described briefly; cite the original reference for full details.
5. Any modifications to established methods must be accurately described.
6. Statistical analyses must be explicitly stated, including tests used, parameters, and significance thresholds.
7. Always check the target journal’s instructions to ensure compliance with their formatting and presentation requirements. Example Structure
Study Population
Clearly define your study population. Include details on recruitment, inclusion/exclusion criteria, consent, and ethics approval. For example:
“Participants were recruited from the [study name], which is part of the [larger study name]. All participants provided written informed consent, and the study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of [institution].”
Experimental or Measurement Procedures
Describe all experimental methods, measurements, or assessments performed. For established procedures, provide a concise description and cite the original publication. For new methods or
modifications, provide full procedural detail. For example:
“Mammographic density was assessed using Cumulus software (University of Toronto, ON, Canada) following established protocols [ref]. Two thresholds were applied to distinguish breast area from background and dense from non-dense tissue. Any modifications to the standard protocol are described here.” Statistical Analysis Provide a clear description of statistical methods and parameters:
• How variables were summarized (mean ± SD, median with IQR)
• Tests used for correlations, comparisons, or regressions (e.g., Pearson correlation,
ANOVA, logistic regression)
• Data transformations applied to achieve normality (e.g., log transformation)
• Significance thresholds (e.g., P < 0.05, two-sided tests)
• Software used for analyses (e.g., SPSS, R, SAS)
Example:
“Patient characteristics were summarized according to quintiles of dense and non-dense breast area. Correlations between density measures and BMI were assessed using Pearson correlation coefficients. Non-linear density measures were log-transformed to normalize distributions. Analyses were conducted in SPSS 17.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Two-sided P-values
<0.05 were considered statistically significant.”
Tip: Review a selection of articles from your target journal to see practical examples of style, subheading usage, and statistical reporting. Trial Registration
AUCTORES: Trial Registration
Trial registration ensures a public record of all planned clinical trials, detailing the study design, interventions, comparators, and intended outcomes. For minimum requirements, see the
WHO Trial Registration Data Set, which defines the essential information required for a trial to be considered fully registered.
What is a Clinical Trial?
A clinical trial is any study that meets the World Health Organization (WHO) definition: "Any research study that prospectively assigns human participants or groups of humans to one or more health-related interventions to evaluate the effects on health outcomes." Further guidance on trial registration, health-related interventions, and health outcomes is available from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) website.
Registration Requirements
• All clinical trials must be registered in an approved clinical trial registry before enrolling the first patient.
• Suitable registries are listed on the ICMJE website and include WHO primary registries as well as ClinicalTrials.gov.
• The trial registration number (clinical trial number) should be included in the abstract of any manuscript reporting results from the trial.
Importance of Trial Registration
1. Transparency – Registration ensures the research process is visible and accountable.
2. Prevents Publication Bias – Registration helps ensure that all research, including non- significant or negative results, is made publicly available.
3. Reduces Outcome Selection Bias – Registration discourages selective reporting of outcomes and ensures all planned endpoints are disclosed.
4. Avoids Redundant Research – Public trial records inform researchers about ongoing studies, preventing duplication of effort.
Late Registration
If a trial has already started but is not registered, it should be registered immediately, even retrospectively if the registry allows. Some journals may still consider the manuscript but may request an explanation for delayed registration. In the future, always register trials before enrolling the first patient, as some journals will not accept unregistered clinical trials for publication.
Systematic Reviews
• While not mandatory, registering systematic reviews is considered good practice.
• PROSPERO is the recommended public registry for systematic reviews.
• Include the PROSPERO registration number in your manuscript abstract.
• Note: PROSPERO does not allow retrospective registration.
Discussion and Conclusions
AUCTORES: Discussion and Conclusions
The Discussion and Conclusions sections should interpret your results and answer the question:
“What do your results mean?”
These sections provide the opportunity to explain the significance of your findings, contextualize them within existing literature, and identify implications for future research. Key Guidelines
1. Order of Discussion
o Present your conclusions in order of most to least important.
o Emphasize key findings first.
2. Comparison with Previous Studies
o Compare your results with those from other published studies.
o Discuss consistencies or discrepancies, and provide possible explanations for differences.
3. Inconclusive or Unexpected Results
o Address any results that are inconclusive.
o Suggest additional experiments or analyses needed to clarify these findings.
4. Study Limitations
o Briefly acknowledge the limitations of your study.
o Demonstrate to reviewers and readers that you have considered potential weaknesses or sources of bias.
5. Implications and Applications
o Discuss the relevance of your findings to researchers in your field, related disciplines, and the general public.
o Highlight potential practical or theoretical applications of your results.
6. Extension of Knowledge
o Explain how your results extend or refine previous findings in the field.
7. Future Directions
o If your findings are preliminary, suggest directions for future research.
8. Concluding Statement
o Summarize your main conclusions clearly at the end of the section. Example (Source: Critical Care, 2011; 15(1):R42)
Discussion
In this large-scale study of 576 unselected medical ICU patients, NT-proBNP and CRP
independently predicted ICU mortality, even after adjusting for APACHE II scores and confounders including eGFR and age. Adding NT-proBNP to APACHE II significantly improved predictive ability, as measured by IDI and NRI indices. NT-proBNP was most informative in cardiac patients, whereas CRP provided additional predictive value across non- cardiac patients. Previous studies reported differing predictive values of CRP, often due to smaller sample sizes or differences in endpoints (e.g., in-hospital vs. ICU mortality). Our findings highlight the importance of considering patient subgroups and study design when interpreting biomarker performance.
Limitations
This was a single-center study excluding surgical and trauma patients. Cardiac function was not directly assessed, so some non-cardiac patients may have had undiagnosed cardiac conditions. Reclassification measures, such as NRI, depend on chosen risk categories, which may influence results.
Conclusions
NT-proBNP and CRP are moderate independent predictors of ICU mortality in unselected ICU patients. While their predictive power is lower than the APACHE II score alone, combining these biomarkers with APACHE II significantly enhances risk prediction. NT-proBNP is particularly useful for predicting outcomes in cardiac ICU patients. References
AUCTORES: References
References are a critical component of any scientific manuscript. They serve multiple purposes:
• Establish the origin of ideas – Show readers where concepts or theories originated.
• Provide evidence for claims – Support statements with published data.
• Connect readers to other research – Allow readers to explore related studies.
• Contextualize your work – Demonstrate how your study fits within the broader scientific landscape.
• Demonstrate interest in the field – Highlight ongoing research and potential readership. Using a reference manager such as EndNote, RefWorks, Zotero, or Mendeley can simplify tracking publications and formatting references within your manuscript. Key Principles
1. Cite Appropriately
o Every factual statement or description of prior work requires a supporting reference.
o Cite conflicting results as well; this shows awareness of the literature and provides context for differences.
2. Read the Source
o Never cite a paper solely based on a review or abstract. Always consult the original publication and verify details before referencing.
3. Credit Original Authors
o When referring to an idea, theory, or method, cite the original researcher(s) to acknowledge their contribution.
4. Justify Claims
o References provide evidence for statements in your manuscript, whether drawn from prior publications or your own results.
5. Connect with the Research Community
o Citations allow others to discover related work, increasing the visibility of your study.
6. Provide Context
o Highlight relevant literature to show how your study addresses gaps, controversies, or advances the field.
7. Be Concise and Relevant
o Focus on the most recent and relevant publications. Avoid overloading the reader with unnecessary references.
o Check the target journal’s guidelines for reference limits. Common Reference Types
Journal Article
1. Koonin EV, Altschul SF, Bork P: BRCA1 protein products: functional motifs. Nat Genet 1996, 13:266-267.
Journal Supplement Article
2. Orengo CA, Bray JE, Hubbard T, LoConte L, Sillitoe I: Analysis and assessment of ab initio three-dimensional prediction, secondary structure, and contacts prediction. Proteins 1999, 43(Suppl 3):149-170.
In Press Article
3. Kharitonov SA, Barnes PJ: Clinical aspects of exhaled nitric oxide. Eur Respir J, in press.
Abstract
4. Zvaifler NJ, Burger JA, Marinova-Mutafchieva L, Taylor P, Maini RN: Mesenchymal cells, stromal derived factor-1 and rheumatoid arthritis [abstract]. Arthritis Rheum 1999, 42:s250.
Conference Proceedings Article
5. Jones X: Zeolites and synthetic mechanisms. In Proceedings of the First National Conference on Porous Sieves: 27-30 June 1996; Baltimore. Edited by Smith Y. Stoneham: Butterworth- Heinemann; 1996:16-27.
Book Chapter
6. Schnepf E: From prey via endosymbiont to plastids: comparative studies in dinoflagellates. In Origins of Plastids. Volume 2. 2nd edition. Edited by Lewin RA. New York: Chapman and Hall; 1993:53-76.
Entire Journal Issue
7. Ponder B, Johnston S, Chodosh L (Eds): Innovative oncology. In Breast Cancer Res 1998, 10:1-72.
Complete Book
8. Margulis L: Origin of Eukaryotic Cells. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1970.
Monograph or Book in a Series
9. Hunninghake GW, Gadek JE: The alveolar macrophage. In Cultured Human Cells and Tissues. Edited by Harris TJR. New York: Academic Press; 1995:54-56. [Stoner G (Series Editor): Methods and Perspectives in Cell Biology, vol 1.]
Book with Institutional Author
10. Advisory Committee on Genetic Modification: Annual Report. London; 1999.
PhD Thesis
11. Kohavi R: Wrappers for performance enhancement and oblivious decision graphs. PhD thesis. Stanford University, Computer Science Department; 1995.
Web Resource / URL
12. Mouse Tumor Biology Database [http://tumor.informatics.jax.org/cancer_links.html] Accessed on date XX. Overcoming Language Barriers
AUCTORES: Overcoming Language Barriers
Clear and precise writing is essential for effective scientific communication. This section provides guidance to help authors write manuscripts that are understandable, concise, and professional.
Writing Clearly, Concisely, and Accurately
• Be brief but complete – Include all essential details while avoiding unnecessary words.
• Keep it simple – Simple language is clearer, more precise, and easier to follow than complex sentences.
• One idea per sentence – Avoid combining multiple concepts in a single sentence.
• Use active voice – Prefer active constructions over passive wherever possible.
• Eliminate redundancies – Remove vague words and circular phrases. Resource: The Purdue Online Writing Lab offers examples and strategies for concise writing.
Professional Language Editing
Professional language editing services can help ensure your manuscript is clear and grammatically correct. Editors may also highlight areas that require clarification. Recommended Services for AUCTORES Authors:
• Nature Research Editing Service
• American Journal Experts AUCTORES authors are eligible for discounts on their first submission to these services. Comparisons
• Compare like with like.
• Use “between” for two items, “among” for more than two.
• Use words like “higher,” “lower,” “shorter,” “more” when comparing different items.
• Avoid “increased” or “reduced” for comparisons between different items; these words refer only to changes over time. Examples:
• BAD: The material from the riverbank was compared with the landfill.
• GOOD: The material from the riverbank was compared with that from the landfill.
• GOOD: Expression levels of p53 in smokers were compared with those in non-smokers.
Proper Nouns
Proper nouns are specific names of people, organizations, locations, or unique entities. Always capitalize the first letter. Examples:
• People: Gillian Welch, Steve Jobs
• Organizations: World Wildlife Fund, United Nations
• Countries/Cities: Australia, London, Beijing
• Days/Months: Monday, January Exceptions (do not capitalize):
• General terms: “two centers”
• Chemical names: acetaminophen, benzene
Articles (a, an, the)
• Indefinite articles (a, an) – Use for something not previously mentioned.
o “a city,” “an umbrella”
• Definite article (the) – Use when the reader can identify the specific noun.
o “the English Channel,” “the sun”
• Use the when referring to previously mentioned items:
o “Each vector encoded a protein. The size of the protein was...” Use of “Respectively”
• Use respectively only to clarify corresponding pairs in a list.
Example:
• Oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen flows were set at 85, 7, and 4 mL/min, respectively.
Numerals and Units
• Spell out numbers 1–9 (except for units or time). Use Arabic numerals for 10 and above.
• Always spell out numbers at the beginning of a sentence if unavoidable.
• Maintain consistent number styles within a sentence.
• Use a space between numerals and units: 178 mm.
• Place a zero before decimals: 0.28 mL.
• Use slashes (/) for proportions and colons (:) for ratios.
Examples:
• The sample included 34 men with type A blood, 15 with type B, and 3 with type AB.
• Half the cases showed improvement; a two-thirds majority responded positively.
• Range: 25–30 mg Spelling
• Follow US or UK spelling consistently based on journal preference.
• Examples:
o US: fiber, center, labeling, color
o UK: fibre, centre, labelling, colour Tip: Microsoft Word can check and correct spellings via Tools > Language. Punctuation
• Colon (:) – Introduces a list or explanatory clause.
o Example: “Journals accepting biotechnology manuscripts include: Biotechnology for Biofuels, AUCTORES Biotechnology, and Microbial Cell Factories.”
• Semicolon (;) –
1. Separates independent clauses without a conjunction.
2. Separates items in a list containing commas.
Examples:
• “The volcano erupted unexpectedly; magma flowed toward three cities.”
• “She works as a nurse; in addition, she is studying medicine.” Large, Small, High, and Low
• Large/Small – refer to size or volume.
• High/Low – refer to levels, values, or quantities. Examples:
• BAD: Large particulate emissions were measured.
• GOOD: High particulate emissions were measured.
• BAD: A low amount of memory was used.
• GOOD: A small amount of memory was used. Publication Ethics
AUCTORES: Publication Ethics
Maintaining high ethical standards in scientific publishing is essential to ensure the integrity of research, build public trust in scientific findings, and appropriately credit the contributions of all researchers. Authors must be aware of common ethical issues and avoid practices that undermine scientific credibility. Key Ethical Principles
1. Data Fabrication and Falsification
• Data fabrication occurs when a researcher invents data without conducting the study.
• Data falsification occurs when a researcher manipulates or alters actual experimental data.
• Both practices are unethical and can erode public trust, reduce funding opportunities, and damage the reputation of the scientific community.
2. Plagiarism
• Using the ideas, text, or work of others without proper attribution is dishonest.
• Copying even a single sentence from another manuscript—or from your own previously published work—without citation constitutes plagiarism.
• Always use your own words and properly cite all sources.
3. Multiple Submissions
• Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously is unethical.
• Multiple submissions waste the time of editors and reviewers and can damage the reputation of journals if duplicate publication occurs.
4. Redundant or “Salami” Publications
• Avoid publishing multiple very similar manuscripts derived from the same dataset or experiment.
• Redundant publications dilute the impact of research and reduce readers’ attention to the findings.
5. Proper Author Contribution and Attribution
• All listed authors must have made a significant scientific contribution to the research.
• All authors should approve the manuscript and its claims before submission.
• Include everyone who contributed meaningfully, including students, technicians, or collaborators.
• Refer to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines for detailed authorship criteria. Organizational Standards
COPE
• AUCTORES supports the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), a UK-registered charity promoting integrity in peer-reviewed scientific publications.
ICMJE
• Our journals endorse ICMJE policies, including guidelines on overlapping publications, authorship, and ethical conduct in research.
Plagiarism Detection
• AUCTORES employs plagiarism screening tools such as CrossCheck to ensure originality.
• Editors may use CrossCheck to detect overlapping or similar text in submitted manuscripts.
• CrossCheck is a multi-publisher initiative that compares submitted and published content to uphold publication integrity.
Summary:
Ethical publishing requires honesty, transparency, and proper attribution. Authors must ensure that data are authentic, manuscripts are original, authorship is accurate, and redundant or
multiple submissions are avoided. Following these principles protects the scientific record and enhances the credibility of both researchers and journals. Competing Interests
AUCTORES: Competing Interests
Transparency about competing interests is essential to maintain the integrity of scientific publishing. Authors, editors, and reviewers must disclose any relationships that could influence, or be perceived to influence, the interpretation of research. Why Declare Competing Interests? Disclosing competing interests ensures that:
• Editors and reviewers can fairly assess your manuscript.
• Peer reviewers with potential conflicts are excluded from the review process.
• Readers are informed of any factors that may influence the research findings. Declaration does not prevent publication. Instead, it promotes transparency and helps maintain trust in the scientific process. Editors may request additional information regarding competing interests if necessary.
What Constitutes a Competing Interest?
A competing interest arises when an author’s interpretation of data, conclusions, or presentation of information could be influenced by personal, professional, or financial relationships with other people or organizations. Authors should disclose both financial and non-financial competing interests that could cause embarrassment or affect perception if revealed after publication. Financial Competing Interests Financial interests include, but are not limited to:
• Receiving funding, reimbursements, fees, or salaries from organizations that could gain or lose financially from the publication.
• Holding stocks, shares, or other financial stakes in organizations affected by the research.
• Holding or applying for patents relevant to the manuscript.
• Receiving support from organizations holding or applying for patents related to the manuscript. Authors affiliated with pharmaceutical companies, commercial organizations, or industry- sponsored trials should also adhere to Good Publication Practice (GPP) guidelines, ensuring that publications are produced ethically and responsibly. This applies to freelance writers, contract research organizations, and communications companies involved in industry-supported work. Non-Financial Competing Interests Non-financial competing interests include, but are not limited to:
• Political, personal, religious, or ideological relationships.
• Academic, intellectual, or professional associations that could influence interpretation. Consequences of Non-Disclosure Failing to disclose competing interests may:
• Delay the peer review process.
• Lead to rejection of the manuscript.
• Require an Erratum or, in serious cases, retraction after publication.
Summary:
Full disclosure of competing interests—both financial and non-financial—is mandatory for all authors. Transparency safeguards the integrity of research, ensures fair peer review, and maintains reader trust. Cover Letters
AUCTORES: Cover Letters for Manuscript Submission
A well-crafted cover letter can significantly enhance the chances of your manuscript being considered for publication. It serves as your introduction to the journal Editor and highlights the significance of your research. Simply sending a brief note like the example below is insufficient: Ineffective example: Dear Editor-in-Chief, I am sending you our manuscript entitled "Large Scale Analysis of Cell Cycle Regulators in Bladder Cancer" by Researcher et al. We would like to have the manuscript considered for publication in Pathobiology. Please let me know of your decision at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, A Researcher, PhD Steps to Prepare an Effective Cover Letter
1. Check Journal Requirements: Review the journal’s Instructions for Authors for specific cover letter requirements, including statements on disclosures, potential reviewers, or ethical considerations.
2. Highlight the Significance of Your Work: Explain why the Editor should consider your manuscript for publication. Focus on novelty, relevance, and potential interest to the journal readership.
Common Phrases to Include:
o “Please find enclosed our manuscript, ‘[manuscript title]’ by [first author’s name] et al., which we would like to submit for publication as a [article type] in [journal name].”
o “To our knowledge, this is the first report showing…”
o “We believe our findings will appeal to the readership of [journal name].”
o “Please address all correspondence to: [corresponding author contact information].”
o “We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.”
3. Essential Declarations:
Include statements that confirm the integrity of the submission:
o “We confirm that this manuscript has not been published elsewhere and is not
under consideration by another journal.”
o “All authors have approved the manuscript and agree with its submission to [journal name].”
Submission Checklist
Before submitting, critically review your manuscript to ensure it meets the journal’s standards:
• Manuscript follows the target journal’s submission guidelines.
• All files are in the correct format and meet resolution or size requirements.
• Spelling, grammar, and language are accurate and professional.
• Contact information for all authors is complete.
• Online submission and registration for the journal are complete.
• A persuasive and well-structured cover letter is included. Tip: Think of your cover letter as a concise “sales pitch” for your research—highlight novelty, significance, and relevance to the journal while demonstrating professionalism and attention to detail. Peer Review AUCTORES: Peer Review Introduction to Peer Review
What is Peer Review?
Peer review is a critical process used to evaluate the quality and validity of a manuscript before publication. Independent experts in the relevant research field assess submitted manuscripts for originality, scientific rigor, and significance, assisting editors in deciding whether a manuscript should be published in their journal.
How Does Peer Review Work?
When a manuscript is submitted, the editorial team first checks whether it meets the journal’s submission criteria. If suitable, the manuscript is sent to peer reviewers—specialists in the field—who evaluate the work and provide recommendations to the editor. Types of Peer Review Journals may use different peer review models. Common types include:
1. Single-Blind Review
o Reviewers know the authors’ identities.
o Authors do not know the reviewers’ identities unless the reviewer opts to sign the report.
2. Double-Blind Review
o Neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identities.
3. Open Peer Review
o Both authors and reviewers know each other’s identities.
o If the manuscript is accepted, reviewer reports are published alongside the article, along with the authors’ responses.
4. Transparent Peer Review
o Reviewers know the authors’ identities, but authors do not know the reviewers’ identities unless the reviewer signs the report.
o Accepted manuscripts include anonymous reviewer reports and authors’ responses published alongside the article. Note: Different journals may follow different peer review models. Always check the journal’s “About” page to confirm which system is used.
Why Peer Review Matters
Peer review is essential for maintaining scientific integrity and improving the quality of
published research. It helps manuscripts become:
• More robust: Reviewers identify gaps or weaknesses and suggest additional experiments or clarifications.
• Clearer: Reviewers provide feedback on sections that are difficult to understand.
• More impactful: Reviewers assess the significance and relevance of the research to the field. Peer reviewers are experts who voluntarily contribute their time to improve scientific publications.
Summary of the Process
The peer review process can follow single-blind, double-blind, open, or transparent models. The workflow generally involves:
1. Submission of the manuscript.
2. Editorial assessment for suitability.
3. Selection of expert peer reviewers.
4. Reviewer evaluation and recommendations.
5. Editorial decision based on reviewer feedback.
Note: The above diagram is a general representation of the peer review process and may vary slightly between journals. Author Tips
AUCTORES: Author Tips
Congratulations on the publication of your article! At AUCTORES, we are committed to helping you maximize the visibility and impact of your research. In addition to our promotion efforts, there are several simple steps you can take to extend the reach of your work.
Share Your Work on Social Media
Promote your research to your professional network by sharing your article on platforms such as Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, and other relevant social media channels. Include a link to your article, tag co-authors or collaborators, and use subject-relevant hashtags to encourage further sharing. Tip: Explore our detailed guide on using social media effectively to increase the reach of your research.
Update Your Professional Profiles
Enhance your visibility by adding your article to your LinkedIn profile or your institutional/departmental webpage. Highlight your key contributions and link directly to your published work. Consider creating a profile on Loop, a researcher-focused networking platform, and link it to your article for increased academic visibility.
Utilize Research-Sharing Platforms
Share your article through academic networking sites such as ResearchGate, Mendeley, Academia.edu, CiteULike, and Loop. Adding your article to these platforms helps your research reach a wider scholarly audience.
Create or Update Your Google Scholar Profile
Maintaining an accurate Google Scholar profile ensures that your publications appear in search results and that your citations are tracked.
• For a new profile, follow the prompts to search for and add your articles.
• For existing profiles, verify that your new article is listed correctly.
• Make your profile public to improve discoverability.
Blog About Your Research
Blogging allows you to explain your research to a broader audience. When writing a blog post:
• Use relevant keywords naturally to increase discoverability.
• Create a compelling title that summarizes your post and attracts readers.
• Share your blog posts on social media to reach a wider audience.
Use Video Content
Consider creating a short video summarizing your research findings, scope, or methods. Video content is increasingly popular and can make your work more accessible to non-specialists.
Make Your Research Outputs Shareable
Deposit your research data in recognized repositories to make your work discoverable and citable.
• Use community-specific repositories if available.
• General repositories such as figshare or Dryad Digital Repository can store supplemental data and analyses. Sharing your data increases visibility, encourages citations, and enhances the reproducibility of your research.
Register for an ORCID Identifier
An ORCID ID provides a persistent digital identifier that distinguishes you from other researchers. Linking your published work to your ORCID profile ensures proper attribution and improves the discoverability of your publications.
By following these steps, you can amplify the reach and impact of your research while establishing a stronger professional profile in the scientific community. Sharing your work
AUCTORES: Sharing Your Work
Promoting your research through social media and professional networks is a powerful way to increase visibility, connect with your community, and enhance the impact of your work. Key Considerations Before You Start Before using social media for professional purposes, ask yourself:
1. Do you have the time? Maintaining an active presence requires consistent engagement. Inactive profiles can reflect poorly on your professional image and may reduce the visibility of your research.
2. Are you using the right platforms? Investigate where colleagues in your research area are active and whether relevant departments or professional organizations maintain profiles. Focus on channels where your audience is most likely to be engaged.
3. Are you prepared to create and curate content regularly? Engaging your audience requires a combination of original posts, sharing relevant content, and commenting on others’ work. Consistent activity builds trust and establishes your presence as an active contributor to your field. Keep in mind that building long-term relationships with your audience takes effort and time.
Best Practices Once You Are Active
Follow key figures and organizations
Follow influential researchers, publishers, and institutions to stay informed about trending topics and discussions.
Share your research strategically
• Introduce links to your published work with intriguing questions or highlight key findings to engage readers.
• Post updates on ongoing research projects, progress, and challenges.
Use hashtags and tags effectively
• Include subject-relevant hashtags and tag co-authors, colleagues, institutional accounts, or professional associations.
• Tools like Hashtagify.me can help identify popular and related hashtags.
Enhance posts with multimedia
Photos, infographics, and videos increase visual impact and encourage sharing.
Shorten links
Use services like bitly.com, ow.ly, or tinyurl.com to create concise, shareable links.
Leverage content-sharing tools
Use platforms like SpringerNature.com’s content sharing functionality to distribute your articles to collaborators and colleagues.
Engage your audience directly
Ask questions, encourage feedback, and create dialogue to strengthen engagement.
Promote your presence at conferences
Share updates on events you attend and use conference hashtags to connect with attendees.
Integrate your social media with professional profiles
Include links to your social media accounts on your department webpage, institutional profiles, and professional listings.
Track your impact
Use tools like Altmetric to monitor how your research is being shared and discussed across social media. The free Altmetric bookmarklet can provide data for any published article, helping you understand and enhance your outreach.
By strategically using social media and professional networks, you can maximize the visibility of your research, foster collaborations, and extend the impact of your work across both academic and public communities. Communicating research through blogs AUCTORES: Communicating Research Through Blogs
Why Blog About Research?
Scientific blogging provides a platform to share important findings, express opinions on emerging topics, and highlight key questions across research fields. Blogs benefit authors by:
• Encouraging discussion and fostering community engagement.
• Expanding the reach of research beyond disciplinary boundaries.
• Communicating complex ideas to a broader, non-specialist audience. Authors may submit blog posts to summarize their research in accessible language or provide context for general readers. Invitations may also be extended by the journal Editor or Editor-in- Chief. The AUCTORES Blog Network, established in 2007, publishes across eight blogs and receives between 80,000–100,000 visitors monthly. In 2019, it recorded over 1.7 million pageviews. Choosing a Suitable Article for a Blog Post
Consider these points when preparing a blog post:
• Would the article appeal to readers outside your immediate research area?
• Does it have a novel angle, unusual methodology, or particularly interesting findings?
• Does the article include visual elements such as figures, diagrams, or infographics?
• Can the blog link to broader initiatives (e.g., Sustainable Development Goals, awareness
campaigns, global events)?
For guidance or examples of suitable articles, authors may contact their journal representative.
Communicating Beyond Experts
Although blog authors are experts, most readers are not. Technical jargon or overly specialized language can reduce engagement. Use clear and accessible language while maintaining scientific accuracy.
• Avoid unnecessary jargon; replace technical terms with familiar words where possible.
• Use metaphors or analogies to explain complex concepts.
• Tools such as simplified text editors can help convey technical content using basic vocabulary. Blogs should not oversimplify the science, but aim to communicate the story and significance of the research effectively to a general audience. Tips for Engaging Readers
1. Know Your Audience: Write for readers familiar with research broadly, but not necessarily experts in your field.
2. Avoid Jargon: Use colloquial terms where appropriate to make your content accessible.
3. Share Personal Experience: Discuss why you studied a phenomenon, challenges faced, surprising results, or insights gained.
4. Highlight Key Findings, Not Details: A blog is not a replication of the journal article. Emphasize the significance of your findings and their broader implications.
5. Use Reliable Links: Include hyperlinks to your research, prior publications, and other relevant resources for readers seeking more information.
6. Choose an Effective Format: Consider Question & Answer, narrative, or other formats that best communicate your story. Work with your journal contact to determine the most suitable approach.
7. Include Visuals: Images, diagrams, and videos enhance accessibility and understanding of complex ideas.
Authors’ Experiences
• Julian K.A. Langowski, PhD: “Blogging allowed me to showcase my research to a much
wider and more diverse audience, beyond traditional publications.”
• Madeleine Geiger, PhD: “Distilling research into blog posts clarified my own
understanding while sharing results with non-specialists.”
• Juan J. Negro, Professor: “Blogs complement academic publications by reaching audiences beyond university libraries, demonstrating the value of accessible scientific communication.”
Getting Started
If your article has recently been published and you wish to write a blog post, contact your journal representative to discuss potential topics, formats, and guidance for submission.