Manuscript Writing: An Editorial Perspective

ABSTRACT

Scientific writing is an essential skill for clinicians and researchers to disseminate their research findings effectively. This narrative review discusses key aspects, including the formulation of an appropriate research question, the selection of suitable study designs, the identification of the right journal for submission and the structuring of manuscripts according to the IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results And Discussion) format. It highlights the importance of reporting guidelines, precise and compelling scientific writing, appropriate sample size calculation, selection of meaningful outcome measures in reproductive medicine and drafting balanced conclusions. This review also provides a concise overview of international recommendations and best practices for manuscript preparation to ensure clarity, transparency, reproducibility and completeness in scientific reporting. Ethical research practices, including avoidance of plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, inappropriate use of artificial intelligence and issues related to authorship and disclosure of competing interests, are also addressed. In addition, common reasons for manuscript rejection are outlined to help researchers improve the quality and impact of their submissions.

INTRODUCTION

Primary clinical research aims to advance knowledge within a specialty for the benefit of humankind, improve health outcomes and identify better methods to diagnose and treat disease. Publishing medical research is, therefore, a natural extension of conducting it. Although numerous guides and publications on scientific writing already exist, this review does not attempt to present anything entirely new. However, our experience as members of editorial boards suggests that the art of scientific writing remains insufficiently developed among many researchers. Strengthening this skill is essential to improve the quality of published research in reproductive medicine.

A sound understanding of basic research methodology is vital for every practising clinician – not only to plan clinically relevant research projects but also to critically interpret scientific literature that informs outpatient decision-making, surgical planning, patient counselling and practices within Reproductive Medicine. This review is intended as a concise ready reckoner to help young researchers, particularly in reproductive medicine, develop their scientific writing skills, while also serving as a practical revision resource for experienced researchers. The primary focus of the review is on clinical research questions around therapeutic interventions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Following a discussion among the contributory authors of the editorial board, topics were identified and divided among the authors. The search for appropriate studies relevant to the topic was performed through PubMed using appropriate keywords. Since the review was narrative and was not a systematic review, a formal search strategy was not planned. The topics broadly covered in the current review are the following: Framing a research question, appropriate study designs, manuscript writing, ethical and regulatory approvals, plagiarism, and the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI).

ASKING A CLINICALLY MEANINGFUL QUESTION – FRAMING YOUR RESEARCH QUESTION

A clinical dilemma or research idea must be transformed into a clinically meaningful, novel and relevant research question. Framing a good research question forms the foundation of a good study and needs time and deliberation. Converting a broad research idea into a clear, focused and answerable question requires a thorough review of the existing literature. This enables the researcher to identify gaps in current knowledge, such as: (a) scarce evidence, (b) conflicting published evidence or (c) areas where existing evidence can be improved upon.[1] It is generally advisable for each paper to address one primary research question clearly and comprehensively.

Narrowing down a research question requires summarising its essential components into the PICOT framework.[2] Using this framework improves clarity and guides study design and methodology.

1. P – Population – who are the participants?

2. I – Intervention (interventional studies) or Exposure (observational studies)

3. C – Comparator – standard of care or placebo (avoid multiple comparators)

4. O – Outcome – what is the outcome or end-point? (Single primary outcome)

5. T – Time frame – what is the time frame for follow-up?

A well-described research question must also be feasible (in terms of funding, patient recruitment, time frame and availability of resources), Interesting, Novel (addresses a gap in literature, provides a new hypothesis, improves the flaws in existing studies), Ethical and Relevant (FINER criteria as proposed by Cummings et al.).[3] Below is an example to demonstrate the use of PICO format to formulate a research question:

Example: Research dilemma - Is PGT-A useful in IVF practice?

P – Women undergoing IVF over 35 years of age

I – PGT-A

C – No PGT-A

O –Cumulative live birth rate

Research question - Does PGT-A improve the cumulative live birth rate in women over 35 years of age undergoing IVF compared to no PGT-A?

Editorial perspective

Some of the common shortcomings encountered in manuscripts submitted for publication include a lack of novelty, poorly defined inclusion criteria, an absence of an appropriate control group, and reporting of multiple poorly prioritised outcome measures. It is essential to clearly define the primary outcome measure at the outset of the study, as it forms the basis for sample size calculation and ultimately determines the statistical power of the study. A well-defined primary outcome also helps maintain focus, reduces the risk of selective reporting, and improves the overall methodological quality of the research.

CHOOSING THE RIGHT STUDY DESIGN: MATCHING THE METHOD TO THE QUESTION

Once the research question has been finalised, the next step is to choose a study design that is both appropriate and feasible to answer it. The choice of study design depends on the nature of the research question – whether the objective is to study disease prevalence, aetiology, or risk factors, diagnostic test accuracy, or the effectiveness of a new intervention such as a drug, therapy, or surgical procedure [Table 1]. Broadly, studies may be observational or interventional. In observational studies, the researcher merely observes and records data without influencing the course of events or choice of intervention, allowing nature to take its course. In interventional studies, the researcher actively attempts to modify a disease determinant or outcome through the introduction of a treatment, drug, device or surgical intervention. The following is a brief overview of various study designs, their strengths and limitations.[4]

Table 1.

Recommended study designs for different research objectives

Research objective	Preferred study design
Therapy – efficacy of drug, surgery, treatment, intervention	Randomised controlled trials
Prevalence	Cross-sectional study
Diagnosis, screening	Cross-sectional study
Prognosis Incidence	Prospective cohort study
Causation, aetiology	Case–control or cohort

Case report or case series

Have you read articles on the first reported birth following vitrification or oocyte freezing, uterine transplantation, or ovarian cryopreservation? These are examples of case reports or case series.

Choose this study design to report a rare disease, an undescribed adverse event, observation of a hitherto unknown disease pathogenesis, a unique therapy for a condition or a unique anatomical variant. Novelty and uniqueness are the key. Since they do not include a control group, they cannot prove a hypothesis or causation. However, they can be clues for the emergence of new diseases or treatment options.[5]

Cross-sectional studies

Have you wondered how to estimate the prevalence of infertility in a certain population or the prevalence of obesity in infertile patients planned for IVF?

This study design is chosen when the objective is to estimate the burden of a disease or condition in a population. Also known as prevalence studies, cross-sectional studies provide a snapshot of the sampled population by assessing the presence or absence of the condition of interest at a specific point in time.[6] Since exposure and outcome are measured simultaneously, temporality cannot be established, and hence, ‘cause and effect’ cannot be established. Nevertheless, cross-sectional studies are valuable for understanding disease burden and informing public health planning and policy decisions.[6]

Case-control studies

A patient in the outpatient setting has heard that babies born with IVF are more likely to have congenital anomalies. You do a quick literature search and read a paper that looks at children born with major congenital anomalies and assesses their mode of conception in the past – either Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) or spontaneous conceptions.

The above is an example of a case-control design. Case–control studies work backwards in time. They commence with the outcome or the disease and go back in time to assess which exposure would have caused the disease of interest.[7] If the prevalence of the exposure is higher in the case group than in the control, then this exposure is associated with a greater risk of the outcome. An essential aspect of this study design is the choice of the control, which has to be matched with the case in all aspects apart from the exposure itself.[7]

Cohort studies

Cohort studies are observational studies in which a group of individuals is followed over a period of time from exposure to outcome. These study designs are particularly useful when the objective is to establish disease incidence or assess the relationship between an exposure and multiple outcomes.[8] Since participants are followed longitudinally, cohort studies help establish temporality between exposure and outcome. However, they are often expensive and time-consuming, especially when long follow-up periods are required. They may be difficult to conduct for rare diseases and are susceptible to loss to follow-up and the influence of potential confounding factors.[8]

Examples: (a) to assess the impact of age – cohort of women aged 40 years and time to conception, (b) to assess exposure – ART live births and birth defects; ART children and long-term health outcomes, (c) Prognosis – Confirmed genital tuberculosis and live birth and (d) to assess mode of treatment – Laparoscopic cystectomy for endometriosis and spontaneous conception rates over 1 year.

Interventional studies/Randomised controlled trials

Do you want to conduct a study to investigate the effectiveness of the long agonist versus antagonist protocol in hyper responders undergoing IVF, or compare the hormone replacement cycle versus natural cycle protocol for frozen embryo transfer in ovulatory women undergoing IVF?

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard study design for evaluating the efficacy of an intervention. They provide the strongest level of evidence for establishing causation and minimise bias more effectively than other study designs. By comparing outcomes between randomly assigned groups, RCTs enable researchers to evaluate the effect of a single intervention or variable in a controlled manner.[9]

Despite their strengths, RCTs are often expensive, time-consuming and logistically demanding. RCTs are not the optimal study design for addressing all research questions. In particular, when evaluating adverse or rare outcomes, observational study designs may provide more appropriate and clinically relevant evidence that may not be feasible or ethical to study in an RCT. In certain clinical situations, they may also raise ethical concerns, particularly when withholding a potentially beneficial treatment is involved.[9]

CHOOSING THE RIGHT JOURNAL: FINDING THE BEST HOME FOR YOUR MANUSCRIPT

One must aim to publish their research in journals that are indexed and included in reputable databases such as PubMed, Scopus or Web of Science. These journals signify higher academic quality and credibility, rigorous editorial standards and have better visibility due to the increased probability of citation. The manuscript should be matched to the scope of the journal, its reputation, its impact factor, its audience and the cost of publication.

Jeffrey Beall is credited with coining the term ‘Predatory journals’, also called fraudulent or pseudo-journals - these are publications that prioritise profit over scientific integrity.[10] They deceive authors into publishing for a publication fee without providing genuine peer review or editorial scrutiny. Researchers must avoid submitting their studies to such journals to avoid permanent damage to scientific credibility and academic reputation. A predatory journal can be identified if it displays any of the following characteristics: a journal title similar to a reputed one; a very wide journal scope, accepting unrelated topics from multiple disciplines; false claims of being indexed and absence from recognised indexing databases as mentioned above; dubious or unclear publishers and ownership; repeated unsolicited emails to authors inviting submissions; almost non-existent peer review process and editorial decisions or hide information on article processing fee.[11] Therefore, if a journal is too eager to accept your article with minimal scrutiny in a very short span of time for a substantial fee, it is best avoided.

Researchers can utilise the following websites to verify the authenticity of a journal: (a) Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), (b) Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) – journals adhering to publication ethics standards, (c) Journal Citation Reports (Clarivate) – impact factors, (d) SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) – journal rankings linked to Scopus-indexed journals and (e) Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA). Free resources, such as ThinkCheckSubmit.org is a non-profit website with a step-by-step guide to evaluating journal quality.

IMRAD AND BEYOND: STRUCTURING YOUR MANUSCRIPT EFFECTIVELY

The manuscript writing model has gradually evolved and improved over the years, and since the 1970s, it has become the standard to categorise a manuscript using the IMRAD format (Introduction, Methods, Results And Discussion). The IMRAD format provides a structured and consistent framework that guides authors in systematically addressing the key questions necessary for understanding and interpreting a scientific study.[12]

• a) I – Introduction – why did you ask this question?

• b) M – Methods – what did you do?

• c) R – Results – what did you find?

• d) D – Discussion – what might it mean?

Authors could create subheadings within these sections to further organise their work. The anatomy of a manuscript varies depending on the type of article: systematic or narrative review, original research, case reports or editorials.

Use of reporting guidelines

The EQUATOR network defines a reporting guideline as ‘A checklist, flow diagram or structured text to guide authors in reporting a specific type of research, developed using explicit methodology’. Reporting guidelines help to improve clarity, transparency, reproducibility, and completeness of presenting scientific research. There are different reporting guidelines for different study designs, and they can be accessed through the EQUATOR network website.[13] Common examples include CONSORT for RCTs, STROBE for observational studies and PRISMA for systematic reviews. They usually comprise a checklist and a flow chart and follow the IMRAD format. Most indexed journals now mandate that authors enclose these respective reporting guidelines along with their manuscript for publication.

CONTENT OF THE MANUSCRIPT: FROM RAW RESULTS TO MEANINGFUL MANUSCRIPT

Title

The title of a manuscript should be catchy, precise and informative, while clearly conveying the key elements of the study. Titles play a crucial role in ensuring that research is discoverable by clinicians, researchers, policymakers, patients and the wider public when searching electronic databases. Ideally, it should state the general topic of the study, reflect the research question, and, where appropriate, incorporate the study design. Using the PICO framework – Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome – can help formulate clear and focused titles that accurately represent the study

Abstract

The abstract should be strong, concise and as accurate as possible in reflecting the main components of the study. It must summarise the key aspects of the research, highlight the most important findings, and present conclusions without overstating or over-interpreting the results. For many readers, the abstract is the only accessible part of the paper and is the section most visible in bibliographic databases and search engines. Editors and peer reviewers frequently make initial decisions regarding screening or rejection based largely on the abstract. Therefore, writing a clear, compelling and balanced abstract is often the first crucial step towards successful publication.

Abstracts can be structured or unstructured. The structure often differs between journals, and hence authors must fashion their abstracts and the whole manuscript as per the instructions to authors of the journal they intend to submit their manuscript to. Towards the end, the abstract must also list the source of funding, the clinical trial registration number (if it is a RCT), and relevant keywords.

Introduction

The introduction should be concise, relevant, and focused, usually comprising three to four well-structured paragraphs that justify the need for the current study. The opening paragraph should briefly introduce the clinical context and clearly state the nature and magnitude of the problem. Subsequent paragraphs should summarise existing literature, identify gaps in current knowledge and highlight whether available evidence is scarce, inconsistent, or conflicting, along with the potential clinical implications of these gaps. The introduction should conclude with a clearly stated research aim and objectives or hypothesis that logically emerges from the preceding discussion. Importantly, results, interpretations or conclusions from the index study should not be presented in the introduction section.

Methods section

The Methods section should clearly describe how the study was conducted and provide sufficient detail to allow reproducibility by other researchers. Ethical approvals obtained from local, regional or national review boards, such as the Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Ethics Committee, must be stated. In the case of interventional studies or clinical trials, registration with an appropriate clinical trial registry should also be mentioned. Statements confirming adherence to ethical research practices, including obtaining written informed consent from participants and conducting research in accordance with the principles of the Helsinki Declaration, should be included.

The methodology should comprehensively describe the study design, setting, participant selection, inclusion and exclusion criteria, interventions or exposures and definitions of primary and secondary outcome measures.

Statistical analysis

This section must incorporate sample size calculation, valid statistical tests used in the study, details of the software used for analysis, confounder handling and univariate/multivariable models, and how missing data were handled.

Presentation of results

The first table should present the baseline demographic and clinical characteristics relevant to the study. The study groups must be compared clearly to demonstrate their similarity at baseline and to identify any important differences that could influence outcomes.

Subsequent tables should focus on the analysis of the primary outcome measure, with results compared appropriately between groups. Effect sizes, confidence intervals and measures of statistical significance should be reported. Wherever applicable, adjusted analyses accounting for potential confounding factors should also be provided. Additional tables may then present secondary outcomes and subgroup analyses. Greater emphasis should be placed on reporting effect sizes (broadly indicating the magnitude of difference between the two arms in terms of the outcome of interest) with confidence intervals, as they provide clinically meaningful information regarding the magnitude and precision of the observed effect, rather than relying solely on P values. The role of chance due to sampling limitations should always be considered while interpreting data, especially in studies with a small sample size.

Discussion

The Discussion section should be focused, well-structured, and limited to content that is directly relevant to the study. It should interpret the findings concisely and meaningfully without unnecessary repetition of results. A logical flow for the discussion generally includes: a summary of the principal findings, comparison with previously published literature, possible explanations for similarities or differences from earlier studies, strengths and limitations of the study, implications for clinical practice or future research and finally, the conclusions.

Conclusions

The conclusions should be concise, balanced, supported by the study findings, and should avoid overstatement or unsupported extrapolation.

Editorial perspective

Common shortcomings observed in manuscripts submitted for publication include lack of focus, inadequate methodological detail, exaggerated conclusions unsupported by the data, and poor interpretation of findings.

1. Introduction - Introductions are often excessively lengthy, fail to build a logical background to the topic and do not adequately justify the need for the study. Research objectives may be vague or poorly articulated, and the PICO framework is frequently not used to formulate a clear research question

2. In the methods section, essential methodological details are commonly omitted, including the study design, study period, trial registration, ethics committee approval and statements confirming adherence to ethical research principles such as the Helsinki Declaration. Definitions of the study population, inclusion and exclusion criteria, clearly identified primary outcomes, and precise definitions of outcome measures are often inadequate or missing

3. The Results section frequently lacks an appropriate comparison of baseline demographic characteristics between groups. Many studies do not include suitable matched control groups, and potential confounding factors are either not recognised or not adjusted for using appropriate statistical methods. Reporting of effect sizes and confidence intervals is often overlooked, with undue emphasis placed solely on P values

4. The Discussion section is frequently unfocused and descriptive rather than interpretative. Authors often fail to adequately explain the clinical relevance of their findings, compare them meaningfully with existing literature or discuss their implications for clinical practice and future research.

IMPORTANCE OF SAMPLE SIZE

Sample size calculation is an important part of any study, especially those evaluating interventions. It is important to involve a biostatistician in the early phases of planning a study and to involve them in the protocol development. The sample size of a study affects funding, resources and the study timeline. Broadly, the requirements for sample size calculation include information on the acceptable alpha level, desired power, one or two-sided study and inputs regarding the baseline event rate and the expected difference between the two study arms (effect size).[14] The sample size is calculated for the primary outcome. While the alpha error (P value) is usually set at 0.05 and the power of the study is set at 80%–90%, the baseline event rate and the expected difference between the two arms are the information the investigators need to provide to the statistician for calculating the sample size. For example, we are investigating a new oral ovulation induction agent for treating women with polycystic ovarian syndrome; we need to provide the success rate of the standard of care and the expected benefit. The cumulative live birth rate following 3 cycles of letrozole (standard of care or control) is approximately 30%, and the expected difference between the standard of care and new intervention (effect size) is 10% (based on an earlier preliminary study). The calculated sample size is approximately 360 in each arm, with a total size of 720. We will also need to account for attrition (usually between 10% and 20%) and finalise the sample size.

Editorial perspective

A vast majority of the submitted studies are not adequately powered due to small sample size, and hence, no firm conclusions can be drawn from these inadequately powered trials. Small sample size with erroneous interpretation of the results remains an important reason for manuscript rejection, especially for a high-impact journal.

CHOOSING THE RIGHT OUTCOME MEASURE IN REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE

It is important to choose the appropriate, clinically important primary outcome for the planned studies. The outcome should be patient-centric, as they remain the most important stakeholders when planning clinical research. For the field of Reproductive medicine, the most important primary outcome is live birth rate when it comes to evaluating the effectiveness of any intervention or lack of it.[15] Surrogate laboratory-based outcomes can be used for preliminary studies, but conclusions should be cautious and balanced when the investigators only report surrogate outcomes without all important patient-centric outcomes in the case of interventional studies. It is also important to follow the standardised definition when reporting an outcome. It is now recommended to use definitions as per the COMMIT initiative in the field of reproductive medicine to ensure harmonisation of the outcomes, which will help in evidence synthesis in the future.[16]

Editorial perspective:

Quite a large number of manuscripts do not report the important patient-centric outcomes, especially for interventional studies, and tend to exaggerate the preliminary beneficial findings based on surrogate outcomes, instead of adopting a cautious approach. This approach is discouraged and generally leads to a rejection of the manuscript.

TRIAL REGISTRATION AND ETHICAL APPROVAL

For any trial or study involving humans, the investigators must seek approval from the institutional ethical board or committee. For interventional trials (e.g. RCTs), the ethics committee must be registered with the Central Licensing Authority (CLA) under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Government of India, under the New Drugs and Clinical Trials Rules, 2019.[17] If the institutional ethics committee is not registered with the CLA, the approvals from such committees for clinical trials and trials involving new drugs are not valid. Even retrospective studies need ethics approval for waiver of consent. For interventional trials, it is important that after the ethics approval is obtained, the investigators initiate the process of prospectively registering the trial in the Clinical Trials Registry of India.[18,19] Here, it is worth noting that ‘prospective’ means that the recruitment of the first participant should be conducted only after the trial is prospectively registered, which is now mandatory. Prospective registration and the availability of the broad protocol in the public domain help increase transparency, mitigate selective reporting and inform other groups about ongoing trials, thereby avoiding duplication of efforts.

Editorial perspective:

Many submitted manuscripts do not pay due attention to ethical and regulatory approvals, which invites immediate desk-top rejections. For many high-impact-factor journals, uploading of an ethical approval document is mandatory during the submission process. Lack of information and details about ethical and regulatory approvals in the methods section is often an indicator of partial or non-adherence to the ethical and regulatory requirements and may invite rejection at the initial screening stage itself. Regarding registration, in any ambiguous situations involving human studies, it will be advisable to register the study with a trial registry.

PLAGIARISM IN MEDICAL WRITING

Plagiarism is a serious ethical violation that goes beyond copying text without an appropriate citation. It is defined as an unauthorised use of data, ideas, or unique techniques or methodologies without proper attribution or crediting the original investigators. Most journals and editors use software tools such as iThenticate or Turnitin to screen manuscripts for plagiarism before peer review or acceptance. If plagiarism or similarity score is significantly high (beyond acceptable cut-offs), manuscripts are immediately rejected and the author group can invite further scrutiny by the editorial team. In serious cases, the editorial team may contact the head of the department or dean of the academic institute and inform them about the research misconduct, which results in a tarnished academic reputation for the author group with potential lifelong implications on his/her academic career. Publishers may place authors on a blacklist, leading to rejection of future submissions for years. If plagiarism is reported after publication, a formal retraction notice is sent, and that label stays linked to the author’s name in databases. This lack of academic credibility can also lead to withdrawal of active grants and rejection of future funding applications.

Editorial perspective:

Similarity score or plagiarism is usually revealed following a similarity score check using software during the initial manuscript screening process. For a high similarity score, the editors will investigate the source, and in some instances, accept a higher than acceptable similarity score if it’s justifiable. Methodology description for common procedures/treatment or standard definitions may lead to a high similarity score, which can be acceptable as per the discretionary power of the editor. High similarity score arising from the introduction, results or discussion sections is less acceptable.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN MEDICAL PUBLISHING

Artificial intelligence (AI) has revolutionised academic writing and medical research. These tools are now used across the full research cycle: literature searches, hypothesis generation, study design, data management, data analysis and manuscript drafting and editing.[20] As of early 2026, over 83% of high-impact academic journals have formal AI policies in place.[21] These policies mandate that authors disclose the following in the acknowledgement section: name of the AI software program or tool, manufacturer, version, date of use, a brief description of how the AI was used to develop the manuscript, and a confirmation that the author(s) take responsibility for the integrity of the content generated.

One of the main drawbacks of Generative AI is that it can throw up incorrect information. It can produce medical data that sounds plausible but is entirely fabricated. The AI can carry forward biases embedded into its training data. Neither of these limitations will be acceptable in a peer-reviewed submission.[20]

The consensus from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and World Association of Medical Editors is clear: AI systems cannot be listed as authors or co-authors.[22] AI cannot be used to fabricate or manipulate data. Input of sensitive patient data or confidential research data into public Generative AI tools is prohibited. Copying AI-generated text or analysis without human verification of accuracy is not allowed. Authors must take legal or ethical responsibility for their work. The author team must remain fully accountable for accuracy and originality of the research in the absence of plagiarism. The GAMER (Generative Artificial Intelligence tools in MEdical Research) statement, published in 2026, provides a structured 9-item checklist for transparent AI use.[23]

Editorial perspective:

The response of the editorial and publishing team is evolving on the handling of AI in medical writing. While the use of AI to improve grammar or language is acceptable with disclosure, its use for writing the manuscript, especially the introduction and discussion sections, is discouraged. The authors should make every effort to write up the manuscript using their own thought process. Currently, the plagiarism software is being upgraded to take screen for usage of AI in submitted manuscripts, and soon, there will be set cut-offs for its usage, similar to the similarity score cut-offs.

CONTRIBUTOR ROLES TAXONOMY AUTHORSHIP CONTRIBUTION STATEMENT

The CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) statement, introduced in 2012, is a breakdown of who did what-it recognises contributions from individual authors and prevents authorship disputes. The 14 standardised roles are: Conceptualisation, Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data Curation, Writing – Original Draft, Writing – Review and Editing, Visualisation, Supervision, Project Administration and Funding Acquisition.[24]

This statement ensures that every contributor, from the principal investigator who came up with the original idea for the study to the statistician who performed the analysis, receives precise credit for their specific work. This promotes fairness in academic recognition and establishes a clear line of accountability. Generally, there is a limit to the number of authors depending on the type of submission. However, the editorial team can allow for additional co-authors if a reasonable justification is provided by the author team.

Editorial perspective:

It is important to note that only those authors who fulfil the ICJME criteria as enlisted as authors and those who do not fulfil the criteria, but have contributed to the study, can be duly acknowledged under the appropriate section of the manuscript. The practise of gift authorship, i.e. enlisting co-authors who have not made a substantial intellectual contribution to justify inclusion, is strongly discouraged. It is important to note that such practise can potentially harm the reputation of such authors, as all authors are equally responsible for the content of the published article, and for any reported associated research misconduct related to the article, all the enlisted authors will be held equally responsible and invite potential investigation and censure.

DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

The declaration of interests (DOI), also referred to as a conflict of interest statement or a competing interest, is an ethical requirement to maintain transparency in research. The authors must declare any potential competing financial and non-financial assistance in the conduct of the research that might influence a researcher’s objectivity. A transparent DOI is an important tool for scientific integrity, allowing readers, editors and peer reviewers to weigh the study’s findings against potential biases.

Editorial perspective:

It is a good practise to mention all the potential conflicts of interest, even if the authors think that it may not be relevant to the submitted work. For studies sponsored or funded by pharmaceutical companies, the authors should clearly state the extent of funding and whether the investigators had complete independent control over the study design, analysis and interpretation of the study results.

COMMON REASONS FOR REJECTION

The rejection rate for most high to middle-impact journals is high, with an acceptance rate between 10% and 20%.[25] The common reasons for rejection are shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

Common reasons for manuscript rejection

Methodological limitation in the manuscript	What can be done
The manuscript is not within the scope of the journal	Explore journals that publish the research topic of interest. Browse through the journal issues to identify similar studies and then decide on the journal
Lack of novelty, with many studies on the topic already published	As highlighted, it is important to launch studies only in areas where clinical ambiguity exists. Studies with a lack of novelty will be difficult to publish in a high-impact factor journal
Major methodological flaws, such as inappropriate or weak study design, small sample size or incorrect eligibility criteria	These can be subjective, with low or newly launched journals being more accepting while high impact journals are more inclined to desktop rejection
Ethical concerns such as lack of clinical trial registration for RCT, Approval from the institutional ethics board, and unethical allotment of intervention	These are prospective requirements and cannot be rectified after the completion of the study if proper prior approval is not taken prior to the start of the study
Research misconduct, such as fabrication, data integrity issues, and unacceptable plagiarism	Non-rectifiable. Runs the risk of permanent damage to the reputation of the author/institution and country
Poorly written manuscript with no formatting, use of non-scientific language, lack of crucial information related to regulatory requirements	Rectifiable, with authors connecting with experienced academicians or attending manuscript writing courses/sessions

RCT: Randomised controlled trials

Following rejection, the authors should address the editorial comments and revise the manuscript as per the inputs before considering a new journal. If no major methodological flaw is observed and additional or reanalysis is suggested, then the authors can revise the manuscript based on the revised analysis and explore other journals. Suboptimal write-up of the manuscript can also be addressed by approaching experienced researchers with extensive publishing experience or attending focused workshops or courses available online or offline.

CONCLUSION

The current narrative review addresses all the important aspects of manuscript writing and gives an editorial perspective. Manuscript writing serves as a packaging, but the conducted study is the ‘core product’ that needs to be presented to the wider scientific community for scrutiny. The scientific merit and quality of the study ultimately will decide the outcome of the manuscript journey.

Author contribution

SG – Conceptualisation, Literature search, Writing– original draft, final approval, SK – Conceptualisation, Literature search, Writing– original draft, final approval, MB – Conceptualisation, Writing – review and editing, Reviewed and gave critical inputs, final approval, MSK – Conceptualisation, Writing – original draft, review and editing, Reviewed and gave critical inputs, final approval.

Conflicts of interest

All authors are on the Editorial Board of Journal of Human Reproductive Sciences. However, the manuscript has undergone blinded and independent peer review.

Data availability statement

Not applicable.

Disclosure on use of artificial intelligence

AI was used to improve language and grammar.

Funding Statement

Nil.