Symposium: Essentials of scientific writing for publications

Abstract

Manuscript writing is an essential process in research; it is the vehicle through which knowledge dissemination occurs from experimental findings. This manuscript aims to equip students, researchers, and professionals alike with the necessary skills and insights for publishing in scientific journals. Each section of a scientific paper is discussed: abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, and conclusion, along with advice on the order by which these are written. Various techniques are explored to best engage readers and convey research findings in a memorable and impactful manner. Lastly, adherence to journal guidelines is discussed, along with common mistakes made by authors when submitting to journals. The importance of clarity and innovation in conveying research findings effectively is emphasized. Practical strategies for organizing manuscripts and enhancing the overall impact of research publications are covered.

Introduction

Writing a scientific manuscript requires a structured, systematic approach that balances clarity and precision while adhering to journal guidelines. To many graduate students, scientific writing can appear daunting, especially when experience is lacking. However, with proper guidance and practice, scientific writing can be an enjoyable process. The objective of this paper is to provide a summary of the contents presented at the Student Symposium: Essentials of Scientific Writing for Publications. The symposium was held on Thursday, July 18, 2024, at the 2024 Poultry Science Association Annual Meeting in Louisville, Kentucky. The symposium consisted of four sections. The first two focused on scientific writing, diving into each section of a paper along with suggestions to best communicate one's research in an impactful manner. The last two were comments from the Editors-in-Chief of Poultry Science and Journal of Applied Poultry Research and included items to consider when submitting to a publishing journal, along with an overview of the submission process. From this symposium, attendees gained valuable tips on scientific writing that they can use in their writing process.

Section 1: From lab to page: the art of scholarly storytelling

Jason Emmert

Scientific writing

The purpose of scientific writing is to educate, analyze, advance knowledge base, critique, and persuade. For many, the process of scientific writing can seem overwhelming, often due to a lack of confidence. However, it is essential to recognize that writing is a skill that can be developed and refined. For individuals in careers that involve a significant amount of writing, including manuscripts, technical papers, and reports, continuous improvement is essential and achievable. Mastery of scientific writing is understanding that it is an ongoing process that benefits from consistent practice and dedication.

Scientific writing consists of three main components of knowledge: research, literature, and mechanics. The research component includes “what was done” in a study, encompassing the how, what, when, where, and why. Graduate students often excel in this area due to their direct involvement in the research process. The literature component comprises of “what has already been done” and draws from previous research. The process of writing the literature section (literature review, introduction) can vary with individuals as it is dependent on the time taken for the writer to not only search for relevant literature but also engage with and interpret it. Lastly, the mechanics of scientific writing tie both literature and research together. This includes the proper use of vocabulary, grammar, structure, flow, and tone to convey a message intended by the writer. Identifying areas of weakness in these components can help guide improvement efforts and strengthen one's overall writing ability.

The sections of a scientific manuscript consists of the abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, works cited, and tables and graphs. Writers who enjoy writing the introduction are often those with a background in creative writing and storytelling, as this section allows for some creative flexibility regarding the research topic. As scientific writers, the materials and methods section is commonly the easiest to write as it involves detailing the procedures conducted during the research. The same can be said for the results and tables and graphs sections. Many researchers find putting tables and graphs together the most enjoyable part of writing. However, the discussion section is often regarded as the challenging, depending on the nature of the work and the writer's level of comfort with interpreting and contextualizing data.

While it may not seem intuitive, scientific writing can be a form of storytelling, albeit within a structured framework. There should be a logical flow through each section of the manuscript from the introduction to the conclusion. Not to be confused with fictional storytelling, scientific storytelling bridges the gap between data and human understanding. Through this process, scientific writers have the ability to craft a compelling narrative that not only engages readers but also clearly conveys the results of our research. Mastering the art of scientific storytelling enables writers to effectively communicate their findings and even inspire action for further research. In scientific storytelling, a data-based objective approach is typically taken. This involves leveraging, contextualizing, and presenting data. Leveraging data uses facts and evidence from the data collected to support research and relevant literature, whereas data contextualization contributes clarification and importance to the data by adding background information. Data contextualization connects the results to previous studies, making the data more accessible, interpretative, and useful for decision-making; it turns complex data into meaningful and actionable insights by identifying patterns, trends, and correlations, and aids in avoiding misinterpretation. Finally, data presentation delivers information to readers in a meaningful and effective way. Data presentation relies on knowing not only about the research at hand, but also the mechanics of writing so that an engaging message is delivered.

Guidance for each section of a manuscript

The following paragraphs highlight some thoughts about each section in a manuscript, presented in the recommended order of writing. These suggestions should be tailored to the individual writer's preferences and specific requirements of the manuscript.

• 1.Tables and figures. It is advisable to spend an adequate amount of time on creation of tables and figures, adhering closely to the author guidelines specified by the journal for table and figure formats. Failure to follow guideline details may result in reviewer dissatisfaction. Tables and figures should be logically aligned with the description of the experiment and treatments as written in the materials and methods section and fit the desired approach in the results and discussion sections. In this manner, the paper will assume a clear and logical flow which increases overall readability.
• 2.Results. The results section can be likened to a movie where the reader is presented with the full scope of findings. However, much like in film editing, not all results may need to be included in the final manuscript. Unnecessary data from assays with no clear relevance may be omitted after deliberation with a supervisor. Similarly, consider whether negative results should be omitted from the manuscript. Certain negative results may not always contribute to the narrative; however, some negative results may hold valuable insight. A logical order should be maintained when referring to tables and graphs to ensure smooth transitions between sections.
• 3.Materials and methods. The materials and methods section can be compared to a detailed baking recipe. Just as anyone with no baking experience should be able to replicate a recipe by following clear instructions with specific measurements, so should readers be able to replicate a research based on the materials and methods section. Clarity is key in this section, including good writing mechanics, using proper grammar, structure, and flow. Seek to describe the research work as clearly as possible, and in a way that aligns with how the data are presented and described in the tables and graphs and results sections. A helpful self-assessment is to consider whether someone could accurately diagram the experimental design based on the materials and methods section.
• 4.Discussion. The discussion section can be among the most difficult sections to write, depending on the writer's level of comfort. It can be likened to a movie critique, whereby after reviewing a movie (results section), an analysis, interpretation, and comparison of other works in the field is discussed and implications and next steps are presented. When writing the discussion section, consider the readers and the level of detail and expertise that matches the journal's target audience. For comparative work, when referencing literature about work done with other species, provide sufficient details such as breed, species, age, and other pertinent information that may impact the interpretation of the results.

  Note that when discussing tables and graphs, address any concerns or flaws with the data at their first mention. Anticipate questions from reviewers and readers and frame the discussion accordingly. Approach the analysis with a critical eye while compiling results; although one may not have immediate answers to the questions anticipated, it is important to discuss them as they may add depth to the analysis. Remember that when processing and interpreting data, researchers have a responsibility as a scientist to be accurate and objective. Avoid the temptation to select data that fits a pre-determined narrative, misinterpretation of data, whether it be intentional or unintentional, and falsification of information.

• 5.Introduction. The introduction section can be viewed as a funnel, starting with a broad overview of the current situation, and gradually narrowing as it progresses. The broad opening describes the issue, provides context, and explains the necessity of the research. As it gets narrower, findings from previous research are highlighted and the gap in knowledge is identified. Lastly, the introduction section ends with your research question, objectives, and hypothesis. While the introduction section allows some flexibility in terms of innovative writing and scientific storytelling, be sure to remain within the standards and scientific norms set by the journal's guidelines.
• 6.Abstract. The abstract is similar to a movie trailer; it serves as a concise summary of the manuscript and should be written last. Although it may be tempting to start a manuscript with the abstract section, especially if it was previously prepared for a scientific meeting, caution is advised. This is because, due to the general nature of the abstract, beginning a manuscript from this section may lead to carryover effects into the manuscript, potentially leading to unintended oversimplification. Therefore, it is advised to leave the abstract as the last section to write.

Additional writing tips

Ensure objectivity and accuracy are prioritized and avoid overly broad statements that are easily debunked or appear biased. Be mindful when using terms like “recently” as these can become outdated quickly. Verify the accuracy of the statistics and anticipate reviewer questions by critiquing the work. Lastly, be sure to proofread before submission.

In addition, writers should be aware of their own writing habits. Identify optimal times and environments for writing. Be aware of distractions and the allure of other tasks that may impede concentration. Recognizing personal obstacles in the writing process and developing strategies to overcome them can lead to continual improvement. Regardless of the current writing skill level, dedication to practice will results in steady progress and enhanced writing abilities.

Section 2: A scientist's guide to outstanding manuscripts

Kirk Klasing

Scientific writing serves a form of innovative storytelling. Unlike fiction which is not based on truths as it prioritizes capturing the reader's attention and drawing them into the story, scientific writing is grounded in truth and objective data, but it can also result in an enjoyable read. Although there is some room for creativity, especially in presentations, scientific writing is more disciplined as there are many guardrails set by ethical standards and established norms that need to be followed.

The best way to begin learning how to write scientific papers is by reading them. Explore papers from a variety of journals of various tiers. A critical and emotionally responsive reading is recommended – evaluating how the paper affects the reader's experience. Did it facilitate understanding or prove cumbersome? Start reading early, well before the writing process begins to familiarize oneself with the scientific style and norms of scholarly writing. A lack of innovative writing skills does not equate to a deficiency in scientific writing. Scientific writing is more about objective, data-driven storytelling than one's ability to weave a story together.

When writing a manuscript, the data should serve as the starting point. Although sifting through data can be time-consuming, it is often an enjoyable part of the writing process – especially when the data is robust. Researchers should anticipate writing multiple manuscripts, therefore be sure to organize the data into distinct manuscripts. Group the data into logical batches that provide continuity and coherence. Divvying data in this manner can help the researcher to fully internalize and understand their results before presenting them in a series of ordered manuscripts that deliver the most impactful information.

Manuscript writing styles

When writing a manuscript, it is helpful to decide on the style of writing. Manuscript writing styles exist on a spectrum, with one end focused on a “straight shooter” approach, and the other focused on scientific storytelling. A “straight shooter” adheres strictly to the historical structure of a scientific paper. The introduction section presents background information and the original hypothesis. The materials and methods section is clear, concise, and can be replicated upon reading. The results and discussion sections analyze the data relative to the experiments, other researchers’ findings, and the original hypothesis. If there are disagreements, they should be openly discussed rather than concealed. The original hypothesis is then supported or refuted with explanations, and finally, a summary of the findings and their significance is discussed. Graduate students, especially those at the master's level, typically approach writing with this type of straightforward approach, while PhD students incorporate more innovative storytelling elements.

The scientific storytelling approach is mostly similar to the “straight shooter” in terms of structure; however, some aspects differ. Some scientific storytelling styles do not have a hypothesis. Rather, the introduction begins by outlining the problem as indicated by the results, provides background information, and summarizes the results with context already determined. This approach starts with the conclusion and tailors the introduction accordingly. The materials and methods and results sections are similar to the “straight shooter” approach, but in the discussion section, the focus returns to the story introduced in the introduction section and is congruent with the presented narrative. Finally, the manuscript concludes by summarizing the results, their significance, and implications.

Tips for writing

In terms of the order of writing manuscript sections, in the “straight shooter” approach, it is recommended to begin with the introduction because it verifies that an adequate literature review has been conducted. On the other hand, a storyteller typically writes the materials and methods section even as the experiment is ongoing, and typically writes the introduction section last because they know how to better frame the direction of scientific storytelling based on their results and discussion.

To optimize the writing process, researchers should ensure that they are in the right mindset and environment. As mentioned in the previous section, consider factors such as the time of day, location, and background environment when writing. As writing requires a tremendous amount of concentration, minimize distractions such as by setting the phone to airplane mode. Be sure to take breaks to stretch and refresh, however, writing should be approached with consistency. Therefore, avoid long interruptions that can disrupt writing flow.

Choosing the right words is crucial in scientific writing. Use common words can that be easily understood by readers. Begin with the simplest word that fits the intended meaning and select the next complex term only if it conveys the point more accurately. Avoid using overly complex words, as this can frustrate readers and reviewers who may need to look up unfamiliar terms. Additionally, prioritize words with clear, singular meanings to avoid misinterpretations. Although this may seem contradictory to creative fictional writing that encourages strong vocabulary, scientific writing values clarity and precision, even if it requires using the same word multiple times. It is more important to be concise in writing, and this can be achieved through practice by rewriting a sentence or paragraph multiple times using fewer words without subtracting from the intended message. Concentrate on making sentences easy to read, precise, and succinct, and eliminate any unnecessary elements that do not contribute to the core message.

Lastly, adhering to journal guidelines and formatting can be done as the final step, once the entire manuscript has been written. Instead, prioritizing logical flow is warranted. Ensure that a connection between the introduction, results, and discussion is clear. Ideas mentioned in the introduction should be referred to again in the discussion section, and vice versa. The discussion section connects the findings to the broader context and provides the value of the research results. For the results section, evaluate which of the tables and graphs would summarize the data more effectively. Spend an adequate amount of time in this area. It may be helpful to read other people's work and how they have presented their data. Avoid falsifying or grooming data, such as omitting treatments or certain data points to tell a better story or achieve statistical significance in your results. Remember that as a writer, it is important to not only be honest with the readers but also with maintaining self-honesty as a researcher.

Section 3: Tips for publishing

Mike Kogut

When writing a manuscript for publishing, it is important to keep in mind that the goal is to persuade reviewers of the significance and merit of the work. Be sure to follow submission guidelines as failing to do so will not only frustrate reviewers but could also result in rejection. Once a paper is rejected, resubmission is not permitted (for Poultry Science (PS) and Journal of Applied Poultry Research (JAPR)), therefore, ensure the manuscript is in proper order before submission. The guide for authors for PS and JAPR can be found on their respective websites (Journal of Applied Poultry Research, n.d.; Poultry Science, n.d.).

Before starting your research

Identify the scientific or animal production problem the study will address. Formulate a clear, focused research question that warrants investigation. Ensure that the research question is novel and does not replicate previous studies. When conducting the literature search, do not limit to recent publications. Go back and search for the foundational papers that remain scientifically valid. Additionally, note that while not all studies require a hypothesis though it is much preferred, the studies should still be guided by a clear question. Be sure to focus the paper on one major question and consider splitting the results across multiple papers if needed.

Steps for success

First and foremost, follow the “Guide for Authors” specified by the journal (Journal of Applied Poultry Research, n.d.; Poultry Science, n.d.). Additional information on manuscript preparation can be found in Taylor and Kogut (2023a). In PS, if the proper formatting is not followed, the manuscript will automatically be sent back to the authors for resubmission even before the review process begins. The publication process goes a lot smoother and faster if formatting guidelines are followed properly. Be sure to use proper English. If help is required in this area, use an English editing service or ask a native English speaker for proofreading. Elsevier also offers free English editing services through their website that researchers can use. Furthermore, PS is an international journal, therefore, the research should appeal to global audiences. As such, regional surveys must include questions that were asked, and the data must be novel or conclusions applicable to an international audience.

From a reviewer's perspective

Reviewers typically begin their evaluation by reading abstract to get an overall idea of the paper. They then proceed to the introduction section to assess the hypothesis or research question. Therefore, the introduction section should provide sufficient background information and lead to an informative hypothesis or research question. Ensure that the hypothesis can be tested experimentally. Failing to do so may not necessarily lead to immediate rejection, but most certainly will result in revisions. The next section is the materials and methods, in which the reviewers seek to understand the technical details of the study. If the paper does not engage the reviewer at this stage, it often leads to extensive revisions, or in some case, rejection. It is important to remember that reviewers volunteer their time to evaluate manuscripts, therefore it is important to demonstrate the significance and relevance of the research to ensure reviewers feel the effort is worthwhile. Reviewers are performing a service to the journal and help to ensure quality publications, so be sure to justify the significance and impact of the research. Although groundbreaking findings are not always necessary, the research should present novel insights within a logically structured framework.

The materials and methods section should be filled with detailed descriptions of experimental procedures. If another paper's method is referenced, follow up with “briefly, …” and provide a short outline of the procedures with citation to the original source. If a kit or antibody was used, provide either a citation or preliminary data demonstrating that the kit or antibody was validated for use in poultry. Failure to do so may result in rejection. Furthermore, for PS submissions, controlled experiments are mandatory, and the experiment must have approval from the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). Failure to state IACUC approval may result in rejection. Lastly, explain statistical analysis procedures.

When writing the results section, do not to include conclusions. The discussion section should address the impact of the research and clearly explain how the results of the study are applicable to the poultry industry. Compare results with those of previous studies and highlight the novelty of the research. Finally, do not overlook the importance of grammar. Reviewers are less likely to engage with the science of the manuscript if the writing is difficult to follow. Proper grammar can help strengthen the argument and reduce the amount of time needed to spend on revisions.

Section 4: Publishing successfully in the Journal of Applied Poultry Research

Brian Fairchild

Deciding on a journal

Before beginning the writing process, carefully consider which journal to submit the manuscript to. With the growing number of journals that accept poultry-related papers, it is essential to identify the type of audience that the research aims to reach. The research's focus – whether basic or applied – should align with the journal's scope. Both JAPR and PS are international journals; therefore, the findings should strive to have an international perspective. While journal metrics such as impact factors and CiteScores may help in the decision making process, they should not be the sole criteria, as these metrics may not always accurately reflect the credibility or quality of a journal. Do not rely solely on these parameters but consider the journal's scope and target audience to ensure the best fit. Journals like JAPR and PS which are owned by associations and societies, such as the Poultry Science Association, ask for members to serve as expert reviewers in the journals’ fields of research. This ensures that a submitted paper will get a substantial review.

Common mistakes upon initial submission

As already emphasized in previous sections, the most common mistake found in manuscript submissions is that the paper was not formatted according to the journal guidelines (Journal of Applied Poultry Research, n.d.; Poultry Science, n.d.). This delays the review and increases the time it takes to process a paper. Some journals may reject papers that are not formatted to meet the journals’ guidelines. For the time being, JAPR will give authors a chance to revise their papers according to the journal's Guidelines for Authors. In the first six months of 2023, 42 out of 91 (46 %) papers submitted to JAPR were sent back to authors due to formatting errors (B. Fairchild, unpublished data). In PS, rejection occurred approximately 53 % of the time (Taylor and Kogut, 2023b). Furthermore, reviewers often spend unnecessary time focusing on these errors, which reduces the attention given to evaluating the scientific merit of the paper. Therefore, ensure that the paper is formatted according to journal guidelines prior to submission (Journal of Applied Poultry Research, n.d.; Poultry Science, n.d.). This will result in a timely and substantial review of the paper.

Pay attention to the major headings as outlined in the journal guidelines for authors when submitting a paper. In JAPR, the sections outlined differ from PS and are as follows: “Summary” (not “Abstract”), “Description of the Problem” (not “Introduction”), “Materials and Methods”, “Results and Discussion” (combined, not separate), and “Conclusions and Applications” which should be numbered and not in paragraph form. Other common mistakes include the absence of continuous line numbers which are essential for reviewers’ reference, poor grammar which can decrease the overall quality of the paper, submitting papers that do not fall within the scope of the journal, failing to include an ethical statement (as previously mentioned), and selecting the incorrect article type during submission process. In JAPR, authors can choose between “Research Report”, “Field Report”, “Applied Research Note”, or "Review Article”, and each of these has different formatting requirements (Journal of Applied Poultry Research, n.d.). Therefore, pay careful attention and avoid these common mistakes when writing and submitting your paper.

Expected time for publication process

Submission to the Editor-In-Chief (EIC) takes approximately one to three days, depending on the level of processing. The EIC assigns the paper to the corresponding Subject Editor (SE), and this process may take an additional one to three days. Once received, the SE does a brief review of the paper and determine if the paper meets the minimum standards for JAPR. The two possible decisions at this point are rejection due to not meeting the minimum standards of the journal or the SE will identify the right reviewers for the paper, invite said reviewers and await reviewer responses. This step can range from one to seven days, depending on how quick the reviewers are to respond. If a reviewer does not respond to the invitation within seven days, the reviewer is uninvited and a new reviewer is identified and contacted, and the step repeats. This means that a seven-day delay has already occurred, which may add to the running time for a paper to be reviewed. Once accepted to review, the reviewers are provided twenty-one days to complete the paper review and submit their comments and recommendations, after which the SE compiles their feedback and sends their recommendation of a decision to the EIC. This step ranges from one to three days. The EIC then gathers a decision about the paper's outcome, known as the “First Decision”, and responds to the corresponding author within one or two days of receiving the SE's recommendation. There are three potential outcomes an author will receive: acceptance of the paper, major or minor revision, or rejection. Resubmission of a rejected paper is not allowed. If a paper was rejected, there may be several reasons why, including the paper being out of scope for the journal, flawed experimental design, incorrect analysis of data, or lack of sufficient replication. If a revision is required, the authors will have a designated amount of time (21 days for JAPR) to revise the paper and resubmit the first revision (R1). After revision, the paper passes through the EIC's desk who forwards it to the respective SE within two days and the SE provides an updated recommendation to the EIC within three to seven days. Finally, the EIC sends an updated decision on the paper back to the author within three days. In total, the submission process can take approximately 52 to 72 days, assuming only one round of revision is required. Note that the final decision of the paper will depend on the number of revisions required. Therefore, to streamline the R1 process, ensure that every comment, concern, and suggestion by the reviewers is addressed thoroughly.

How to respond to reviewers

Upon receiving a letter of feedback from the EIC, be sure to read the revision email thoroughly and carefully. For both PS and JAPR, the revision process consists of two key steps. Firstly, copy and paste all the reviewer comments and suggestions into a new document. Reply to each comment individually, even if it requires a simple response such as “addressed”, “done”, “changed”, or “corrected”. This confirms to the reviewers and SE that you have acknowledged their feedback and addressed it accordingly. It is useful for the reviewers if the line numbers are also included in each response. Should there be a disagreement with any comment, a well-reasoned rebuttal with a respectful and professional tone may be presented. Secondly, highlight all changes made in the revised manuscript in yellow. This allows the section editor to review the revised document and evaluate the updates made from the original document as well as verify that all revision comments were addressed satisfactorily. Some common mistakes that occur during the revision step include failing to highlight changes, which is explicitly mentioned in the decision letter instructions, failing to address all suggestions made by reviewers and SE, and failing to provide a satisfactory response to specific comments. However, if the revised paper is not done satisfactorily, it will be sent back to the author for a second revision or it may be rejected at this point. Sending papers back for multiple revisions can increase the time to final decision and publication. Additional information on manuscript revision can be found in Taylor and Kogut (2023b).

How to become a reviewer

To contribute to the PS or JAPR as a reviewer, professionals can directly reach out to an SE or the EIC or fill out a volunteer form located on the Poultry Science Association website. Reviewers are typically professionals in the poultry industry, such as individuals with a Ph.D., DVM, or a Master's degree with proven experience and expertise in a relevant field. When an invitation to review is received, assess whether the paper aligns with specific areas of expertise and that there is no conflict of interest with the author(s). It is advised to respond promptly to invitations to prevent delays in the review process.

Tips for reviewing a paper

Although this section is mainly directed towards reviewers, writers can apply these tips when writing and critiquing their work. Be sure to focus on the science, experimental design, and data analysis to ensure the research is robust and reliable. When reviewing a paper, spend less time focusing on grammar and more time on the number of replicates, controls, and statistical analyses, ensure the results support the conclusions, and that the content is accurate, including correct use of and citation of previous work. Offer constructive feedback, and if the paper is of high quality and makes a substantial addition to existing literature, be sure to acknowledge its merits. As a scientific writer, applying these same principles when reviewing a manuscript can help produce a more robust submission.

Symposium conclusion

Scientific writing requires a balance of clarity, precision, and adherence to established norms and guidelines, but can also incorporate elements of innovative writing. It is essential to approach manuscript writing methodically. Each section of the manuscript, from tables and graphs to discussion, plays a vital role in communicating research findings effectively. The introduction should clearly outline the research problem and hypothesis, while the materials and methods section must be detailed enough for replication. The results section should present data without drawing conclusions, leaving the discussion to contextualize findings within the broader industry and literature. Equally important is the need for good writing mechanics and proper grammar which can improve the overall quality of the manuscript. Finally, when revising the manuscript, be sure to acknowledge and address all comments thoroughly, and highlight changes made to the manuscript. Ultimately, writing a successful scientific paper requires not just thorough research but also a deep understanding of how to present its findings in a compelling, precise, and professional manner.

Disclosures

The authors whose names are listed immediately below certify that they have NO affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.