Getting your publication right – Part 1 structuring a research manuscript: A guide to writing original research

1. ABSTRACT

Scientific literature forms the foundation of evidence-based medicine, enabling the dissemination, validation, and advancement of scientific knowledge. Original research articles represent the most structured form of scholarly communication through which scientific observations are translated into clinically relevant and reproducible evidence. Effective scientific writing requires the integration of rigorous methodology, ethical research conduct, critical analysis, and clear scientific presentation to ensure accuracy, transparency, and academic integrity. The organization of original research manuscripts commonly follows the standardized Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion (IMRAD) structure, encompassing IMRAD, thereby ensuring logical flow and uniformity in scientific reporting. Essential components, including formulation of research questions and hypotheses, literature search strategies, study design selection, sampling methods, statistical analysis, interpretation of findings, referencing systems, and journal selection, collectively determine the quality and impact of publication. Adherence to international reporting guidelines such as CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, and CARE further enhances methodological consistency, transparency, and reproducibility in biomedical research. Structured and precise scientific writing not only strengthens the credibility of research but also facilitates evidence-based clinical decision-making, academic communication, and future scientific advancement. Therefore, the present article emphasizes the fundamental principles involved in designing, structuring, writing, and publishing an original research article, with the aim of promoting high-quality scientific communication and responsible research dissemination in biomedical sciences.

Outcomes of the symposium on getting your publication right, held at the 40^th IACDE National conference, Chandigarh

1. ABSTRACT

2. FOREWORD

3. INTRODUCTION

4. STUDY DESIGN FOR ORIGINAL RESEARCH

5. HIERARCHY OF EVIDENCE

6. STRUCTURAL ORGANIZATION OF THE MANUSCRIPT

   1. Title

   2. Abstract

   3. Keywords

7. THE IMRAD STRUCTURE - THE GLOBAL STANDARD FOR SCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATION

   1. Introduction -Initial perspective

   2. Hypothesis in Research

   3. Publication Databases and search strategy

   4. Methodology

   5. Sample selection and sample size

   6. Sampling techniques

   7. Study components and reporting standards

   8. Statistical Analysis

   9. Data preparation and Classification of variables

   10. Selection of Statistical tests

   11. Hypothesis testing and interpretation.

   12. Execution and reporting

   13. Results

   14. Discussion

   15. Conclusion

8. REFERENCES AND CITATION

9. HOW TO SELECT AN APPROPRIATE JOURNAL FOR PUBLICATION

   1. SCImago Journal Rank

   2. Quartile Classification (SJR based)

   3. Impact factor

   4. Author level Matrix

   5. Practical Considerations in Journal Selection

   6. Strategic approach to submission

10. DECLARATION

11. GRANT APPLICATION

12. CONCLUSION

13. REFERENCES

2. FOREWORD

In my experience of more than 5 years as Editor of the Journal of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, I have seen innumerable research papers being submitted for publication, but unfortunately, very few articles see the light of day and get published. Statistically, the year 2025 had 1101 paper submissions, out of which 217 (20%) papers got accepted. This brings us to a very important question: why did the rest of the papers face rejection?

Well, there can be a whole lot of reasons for a paper not getting accepted, putting the editor in a very difficult situation. A few reasons could be improper content, lack of novelty, being repetitive, lack of scientific rigor, the write-up not creating the right impact, or just plain luck. One important reason that is most often seen is that the paper is not prepared and written in a proper manner, leading to rejection.

This topic How to get your Publication right was presented in a scientific symposium at the 40^th IACDE National Conference, Chandigarh, and discussed under five categories, namely Original, Research, Randomized Control Trials, Case reports, Systematic reviews, Meta-analysis, and Plagiarism. The presenters were senior academicians, researchers, section editors, and reviewers associated with the Journal of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics. It was felt that the outcome of this symposium should culminate in a written paper for the benefit of the postgraduate students and authors.

The idea of this Five-part series is to provide young researchers a roadmap on how to prepare a publication that would increase the probability of it getting accepted.

Dr. Shishir Singh

Editor in Chief Journal of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics

3. INTRODUCTION

Scientific writing is recognized as one of the most refined expressions of intellectual discipline in both academia and clinical practice. It is not merely treated as a technical exercise, but is understood as a deliberate craft through which empirical inquiry transforms into a structured narrative capable of informing, persuading, and advancing collective understanding. The ability to articulate findings with clarity and precision is regarded as inseparable from the integrity of the research by both scholars and healthcare professionals.

At its core, research is viewed as a systematic and purposeful pursuit of knowledge. It often begins with a moment of curiosity – an observation, a question, or an unresolved problem – which gradually develops into a well-defined hypothesis. This hypothesis, grounded in existing literature and rational thought, serves as the foundation upon which methodical investigation is built. Through careful design, rigorous methodology, and critical analysis, questions are not only answered, but meaningful contributions are also made to a broader intellectual discourse.

Original research articles represent embodiments of this endeavor. They are constructed as carefully organized pieces of scholarly communication that focus on a specific inquiry, through which either novel insights are offered or established understanding is reaffirmed. Such works are not produced as isolated outputs; rather, they integrate into the research journey itself, reflecting both the ongoing process and the outcomes of scientific exploration.[1]

The progression of research is further explained through the concept of knowledge transfer – a continuum in which knowledge is created, disseminated, and applied. Initially, knowledge is generated through disciplined inquiry which is then translated into accessible forms and shared with relevant audiences, so that findings extend beyond the immediate research setting. Ultimately, this knowledge integrates into practice, where it informs decisions, shapes policies, and enhances professional standards.

Importantly, the act of writing weaves into the fabric of the research process from its earliest stages. Early drafting improves coherence of thought, strengthens the logical flow of ideas, and preserves the authenticity of observations. When writing develops alongside research, the final manuscript does not emerge as a hurried compilation but presents as a polished and cohesive work that reflects both intellectual rigor and professional excellence.

4. STUDY DESIGN FOR ORIGINAL RESEARCH

The framework for conducting scientific investigation generally falls into two broad approaches: descriptive and analytical. The suitable approach is applied based on the nature of the research question and the level of inquiry required [Figure 1].

Figure 1.

Types of studies

Descriptive studies identify and report characteristics of interest such as age, gender, race, geographic distribution, and disease incidence or prevalence. In such designs, researchers observe and document patterns without attempting to establish causal relationships. Clinical case reports and case series commonly fall under this category, where detailed descriptions of individual or grouped clinical observations are presented.

In contrast, Analytical studies answer specific research questions and test hypotheses. These studies explore associations and, where possible, establish cause-and-effect relationships. Depending on the time frame of data collection, analytical studies are classified as either prospective or retrospective. Furthermore, they subdivide into observational and experimental designs.

In observational studies, natural variations between variables are assessed without any intervention by the investigator. These studies are mainly categorized into cohort, case–control, and cross-sectional designs. In cohort studies, groups defined by exposure status are followed over time, and outcomes are observed; for example, patients with deep carious lesions and pulp exposure treated with direct pulp capping are followed for a long period to determine how many subsequently develop pulpal necrosis. In case–control studies, subjects are retrospectively compared on the basis of the presence or absence of a specific outcome in order to identify possible risk factors. For instance, patients who develop flare-ups after root canal treatment are compared with those who show uneventful healing, and possible influencing factors such as irrigation protocol, instrumentation technique, or systemic conditions are retrospectively analyzed. In cross-sectional studies, a population is examined at a single point in time to determine the prevalence of a disease condition and/or associated risk factor. For example, the evaluation of apical periodontitis using the periapical index in previously root canal-treated teeth at a particular point in time.[2]

Experimental studies, commonly referred to as clinical trials, establish cause-and-effect relationships. In these studies, participants are assigned to experimental and control groups, where the experimental group receives a specific intervention while the control group remains without it. Outcomes are then measured prospectively to assess the effect of the intervention. Among these, randomized controlled trials represent the gold standard, as participants are randomly allocated to groups, ensuring comparability and minimizing bias. Nonrandomized and self-controlled trials are also conducted, although they are considered less methodologically robust due to potential selection bias.

To ensure clarity, transparency, and uniformity in reporting, researchers follow specific guidelines for different study designs. Observational studies follow STROBE guidelines, randomized trials follow CONSORT standards, SQUIRE applies to quality improvement studies, PRISMA to systematic reviews and meta-analyses, STARD to diagnostic accuracy studies, CARE to case reports, and AGREE to clinical practice guidelines.

5. HIERARCHY OF EVIDENCE

The hierarchy of evidence ranks study designs based on their ability to provide reliable and clinically applicable information. This hierarchy takes the form of a pyramid, where evidence ranges from the least to the most robust. At the lower levels, in vitro and animal studies are included, which, although valuable for scientific understanding, offer limited direct clinical applicability [Figure 2].

Figure 2.

Hierarchy of evidence

At higher levels, human studies with stronger methodological designs are placed. Randomized controlled trials, particularly those employing blinding, are considered highly reliable. At the top of the hierarchy, systematic reviews and meta-analyses stand, as they synthesize data from multiple studies and enhance the overall strength and credibility of evidence.[3]

This structured ranking supports evidence-based clinical decision-making, where the most reliable and applicable findings receive priority. While all forms of research contribute to scientific knowledge, those at the upper levels of the evidence pyramid remain most directly relevant for clinical practice, helping practitioners make informed and effective decisions.

6. STRUCTURAL ORGANIZATION OF THE MANUSCRIPT

The structural organization of a scientific manuscript is regarded as a critical element in effective scholarly communication, as each section contributes to the clarity, accessibility, and overall impact of the research.

6.a. Title

The title serves as the first point of contact between the manuscript and its readers, and therefore, considerable attention is given to its formulation. It reflects the essence of the study while simultaneously attracting the interest of the audience. A well-crafted title is expected to be clear, concise, specific, and informative, while also remaining engaging and easy to read. Unnecessary jargon, abbreviations, and subjective expressions are avoided to maintain objectivity and clarity. In many cases, shorter, single-sentence titles are preferred, as they enhance readability and recall. As the most frequently read component of the manuscript, the title is considered a crucial element in presenting and promoting the research work.

6.b. Abstract

The abstract serves as a concise yet comprehensive summary of the entire manuscript. It follows a logical and sequential structure, typically including the background or introduction, objectives, methodology, results, and conclusions. Due to word limitations, usually ranging between 150 and 300 words, precision and clarity are emphasized in its composition. The abstract requires particular care, as it often determines whether the reader proceeds to the full text. A well-prepared abstract engages editors, reviewers, and future readers, whereas a poorly written one discourages further reading.

Importantly, the abstract is not drafted at the beginning of the writing process; rather, it is developed after the completion and revision of the full manuscript. This approach ensures that the abstract remains fully aligned with the main text and accurately reflects its content and structure. Any modifications made during revision are incorporated into the abstract to maintain consistency. In essence, the abstract acts as an independent yet faithful representation of the study, mirroring the key elements of the manuscript.[4]

While concise, the abstract conveys a coherent and compelling narrative. An effective opening statement highlights the relevance and timeliness of the research problem, thereby capturing the reader’s attention. Methodological details, including research design, data collection, and analytical approaches, are briefly outlined to demonstrate the rigor of the study. Where space permits, additional elements such as participant characteristics, study context, interventions, and ethical considerations are included to enhance transparency and applicability.

6.c. Keywords

Keywords appear immediately after the abstract and represent the core concepts of the manuscript. These terms are chosen carefully, as they play a vital role in indexing and retrieval through electronic databases and search engines. Appropriate keywords are essential for improving the visibility and discoverability of the research within the scientific community.

Overall, the title, abstract, and keywords are recognized as foundational components of a manuscript, collectively shaping the first impression of the research and facilitating its reach, comprehension, and impact.

7. THE INTRODUCTION, METHODS, RESULTS, AND DISCUSSION STRUCTURE: A GLOBAL STANDARD FOR SCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATION

The dissemination of original research follows a universally accepted framework known as the Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion (IMRAD) structure. Since the mid-20^th century, this format is widely adopted across scientific, academic, and public health literature, where clarity, logical flow, and methodological rigor are consistently emphasized. Its use is further reinforced by international recommendations such as the uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals, through which a standardized approach to scholarly communication is maintained.[5]

Within this structure, the organization of an original research manuscript follows a sequence of fundamental questions. The purpose and specific aims of the study define what is undertaken. The background and rationale explain why the study is conducted. The experimental design and methodology describe how the investigation is carried out. The findings are presented systematically in the results section, followed by their interpretation in the discussion. Future directions indicate the continuity of research, while the clinical relevance and application of findings appear within the conclusion.

7.a. Introduction – Initial perspective

The introduction section serves as the intellectual foundation of the manuscript, where the purpose of the study is clearly stated, and the background information is carefully outlined. A balance is maintained between the significance of the research question and its practical feasibility, considering time, available resources, and methodological constraints.

Typically, this section consists of three to four paragraphs, forming approximately 15% of the manuscript. The content follows a gradual, funnel-shaped progression – from general concepts to specific research gaps. In the opening paragraph, the current understanding of the topic and relevant previous studies are briefly introduced to establish context. In the subsequent paragraph, the limitations of existing knowledge and unresolved aspects of the problem are highlighted, thereby emphasizing the need for further investigation. The relevance of the present study is then articulated in relation to these gaps.

In the concluding part of the introduction, the central research question, purpose, or hypothesis is explicitly stated, addressing key considerations such as “Why is the study conducted?,” “What is investigated?,” and “What is the significance of this inquiry?.” Care is taken to ensure that the hypothesis is expressed clearly and precisely.

Standard abbreviations are introduced appropriately, with full terms provided at first mention, followed by their abbreviated forms in parentheses. Unnecessary generalizations and overly broad information are avoided to maintain focus and conciseness. Importantly, the introduction persuades the reader of the necessity and relevance of the study, while detailed analysis, interpretation, and critique remain reserved for the discussion section.

7.b. Hypothesis in research

The hypothesis is formulated as a clear, concise, and testable statement that reflects the central idea of the research. It often represents the purpose of the study, supported by specific aims or objectives through which the research question is addressed.

In refining a research question into a testable hypothesis, four essential elements are considered: the problem or patient group, the intervention or exposure, the comparison group, and the expected outcomes. This structured approach is effectively represented by the PICO framework, where each component guides the development of a focused and meaningful hypothesis. The problem or patient population defines the context of the study. The intervention, treatment, or risk factor specifies the primary variable under investigation. A comparison group or alternative intervention establishes a reference point, while the expected outcomes indicate the anticipated effects or results of the study.

An extension of this framework, PICOT, also applies in clinical research, where the element of time is incorporated. This addition allows the duration of intervention or the period of outcome assessment to be clearly defined, thereby enhancing the precision and applicability of the research question. Through these frameworks, hypotheses are structured in a way that ensures clarity, relevance, and feasibility in scientific investigation.

PICO (T) framework: Examples for formulating clinical research questions

The PICO (T) framework is widely applied in clinical research to structure focused, answerable research questions by clearly defining the patient/problem, intervention, comparison, outcomes, and time frame. This structured approach enhances clarity, improves methodological precision, and strengthens the quality of evidence-based investigations [Table 1].[6]

Table 1.

PICO (T) framework

Problem patients (P)	Intervention exposure (I)	Comparison (C)	Outcome (O)	Time (T)
Among adults with periodontal disease	Moderate-to-severe periodontal disease	Compared to mild or number periodontal disease	Associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction?	Over a defined follow-up period (e.g., 5–10 years)
In patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment	Use of an electric toothbrush is considered	Compared with a manual toothbrush	Associated with improved plaque control and oral hygiene outcomes	Over the active orthodontic treatment duration (e.g., 6–24 months)
In patients diagnosed with aggressive periodontitis	Flap surgery is considered	Compared with scaling and root planing	Effective in reducing tooth loss during the maintenance phase.	During a specified maintenance period (e.g., 12 months or longer follow-up)

These examples demonstrate how clinical research questions are systematically structured using the PICO (T) format, where the addition of time (T) further refines temporal relevance, improves comparability across studies, and enhances the applicability of findings in clinical decision-making and scientific investigation.

7.c. Publication databases and search strategy

Publication databases serve as organized repositories of scientific literature, where research articles are indexed, retrieved, and evaluated systematically. These databases are considered essential tools in identifying relevant evidence and ensuring comprehensive literature coverage.

Among the major databases, platforms such as PubMed/MEDLINE are widely used for accessing biomedical and life sciences research, offering free and extensive coverage. Multidisciplinary databases such as Scopus and Web of Science provide broader citation tracking and analysis. The Cochrane Library is recognized for its high-quality systematic reviews and clinical trial data, while Embase is valued for its strong emphasis on pharmacological and drug-related research. Google Scholar offers wide accessibility, although its indexing is considered less refined. In addition, subject-specific databases, including those dedicated to dentistry and regional literature, are consulted to ensure comprehensive retrieval of domain-specific evidence.

MEDLINE, developed by the National Library of Medicine, stands as one of the most prominent bibliographic databases in biomedical research. It remains a comprehensive and freely accessible resource, indexing thousands of journals and millions of citations across diverse healthcare disciplines. Its structured indexing system is supported by Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), a controlled vocabulary through which articles are categorized based on subject content. These standardized terms, along with subheadings, improve the accuracy and consistency of literature searches.

In conducting an effective literature search, appropriate strategies optimize results. Keywords and MeSH terms are carefully selected, often supplemented by text words from titles and abstracts. Searches are also performed using author names or specific journal titles when required.[7]

Boolean operators act as fundamental tools in refining search strategies. The operator “AND” narrows results by ensuring that all specified terms are included. The operator “OR” broadens the search by incorporating synonyms or related terms. The operator “NOT” excludes irrelevant or unwanted results, thereby improving the specificity of the search.

Through the systematic use of these databases and strategies, literature searches are conducted in a structured, efficient, and reproducible manner, ultimately strengthening the quality and credibility of scientific research.

Selected articles are systematically organized and managed using reference management tools such as EndNote, Zotero, or Mendeley, facilitating accurate citation and efficient handling of sources. Through such structured and methodical approaches, the literature search process strengthens the overall quality and credibility of the research.

7.d. Methodology

The methodology section serves as the backbone of a scientific manuscript, where the entire research process is systematically described. The design, materials, participants, procedures, and analytical approaches are clearly outlined to ensure transparency, reproducibility, and scientific validity.

All study designs involving humans, animals, or laboratory-based systems require approval from an Institutional Ethical Committee, in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (2013) and its subsequent revisions, ensuring ethical compliance in biomedical research.

The methodology section includes essential components such as study type, materials (including chemical concentrations, dosages, and manufacturer details), participant characteristics, demographic data, study setting, duration, and ethical approval status. Experimental procedures, protocols, tools, and techniques are described in detail, along with calibration methods, measurement parameters, and statistical approaches. When protocols are extensively detailed, they are briefly described and appropriately referenced, with modified protocols clearly indicated.[8]

Flowcharts and tables enhance clarity and reduce complexity in long methodological descriptions.

7.e. Sample selection and sample size

Sample selection represents a critical aspect of study design, where information regarding participant number, demographic profile, recruitment process, inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria, dropouts, and reasons for attrition is systematically documented.

Sample size determination ensures a balance between scientific validity and ethical responsibility. Small sample sizes, often seen in rare conditions or resource-limited studies, are associated with reduced reproducibility and higher chances of false-negative results. In contrast, excessively large samples are avoided as they may raise ethical concerns and produce statistically significant yet clinically irrelevant findings. Therefore, sample size is calculated to ensure methodological accuracy and ethical balance, with computational tools such as OpenEpi and G*Power widely used to support accurate estimation based on study design and statistical requirements.

7.f. Sampling techniques

Sampling techniques are broadly categorized into probability and nonprobability methods.

In probability sampling, every individual in the population has an equal chance of selection. This includes simple random sampling, where selection occurs randomly; stratified sampling, where the population divides into subgroups; cluster sampling, where naturally occurring groups such as schools or hospitals are selected; and systematic sampling, where participants are chosen at regular intervals.

In nonprobability sampling, selection depends on accessibility or judgment rather than randomization. Convenience sampling selects easily available participants. Quota sampling fills predefined group proportions, and snowball sampling involves existing participants recruiting additional subjects.

7.g. Study components and reporting standards

Intervention details are clearly defined in experimental research, including the type of treatment, dosage, frequency, duration, and procedural methodology applied to participants. Outcome measures are categorized to evaluate the effects of interventions or exposures. Primary outcomes represent the main results of the study, secondary outcomes indicate additional effects, clinical outcomes reflect observable patient-related changes, and radiographic or biological outcomes serve as objective measurable indicators such as lesion reduction or microbial changes.

Standardized reporting guidelines are followed based on study design, in accordance with established international recommendations, ensuring consistency, transparency, and scientific integrity in research reporting.

7.h. Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis is essential in biomedical research for converting raw observations into valid, interpretable, and reproducible scientific evidence. The integrity of study outcomes depends on appropriate data classification, correct selection of statistical tests, and transparent reporting. This article presents a structured and clinically relevant framework for conducting statistical analysis, with emphasis on quantitative and qualitative data handling.[9]

7.i. Data preparation and classification of variables

Statistical analysis begins with meticulous data preparation and correct classification of variables. Data are entered into validated statistical software such as SPSS, R, STATA, GraphPad Prism, or Microsoft Excel, followed by data cleaning to address missing values and outliers. Variables are categorized as quantitative (continuous or discrete numerical data) or qualitative (categorical or ordinal data). Quantitative data include measurements such as bond strength, canal curvature angles, or biomarker levels, whereas qualitative data include categories such as gender, presence or absence of infection, or pain scores graded on ordinal scales. For quantitative variables, assessment of normality using tests such as the Shapiro–Wilk test is essential, as it determines whether parametric or non-parametric statistical methods apply.

7.j. Selection of statistical tests

Parametric tests for quantitative data

Parametric tests apply to quantitative (continuous) data that follow a normal distribution and meet assumptions such as homogeneity of variance. These tests are statistically powerful and allow precise estimation of population parameters. The Student’s t-test compares the means of two groups, either independent or paired, while analysis of variance compares means across three or more groups. Pearson’s correlation coefficient assesses the strength and direction of linear relationships between two continuous variables. These tests are widely used in biomedical research for analyzing objective measurements such as material properties, radiographic parameters, or biochemical markers.

Non-parametric tests for qualitative and non-normal data

Non-parametric tests apply when data do not satisfy parametric assumptions or when dealing with qualitative (categorical or ordinal) data and nonnormally distributed quantitative data. These tests are less sensitive to outliers and distributional irregularities. The Mann–Whitney U test compares two independent groups when the data is ordinal or skewed, while the Wilcoxon signed-rank test applies to paired observations. The Kruskal–Wallis test extends this comparison to more than two groups. For purely qualitative data, such as frequencies or proportions, the Chi-square test assesses associations between categorical variables. These methods are particularly relevant in clinical scenarios involving subjective outcomes, such as pain intensity scales or grading of inflammation.

7.k. Hypothesis testing and interpretation

Statistical inference relies on hypothesis testing, where the null hypothesis assumes no difference or association, and the alternative hypothesis indicates the presence of a significant effect. A significance level of 0.05 is typically adopted. P <0.05 denotes statistical significance, while a value < 0.01 indicates a highly significant result; values > 0.05 suggest no statistically significant difference. However, reliance solely on P values is inadequate. Reporting effect sizes and confidence intervals provides insight into the magnitude and clinical relevance of findings.

7.l. Execution and reporting

Statistical analysis is performed using appropriate software with predefined parameters. It is essential to clearly state which statistical test is used for each variable, specifying whether the data is quantitative or qualitative and whether parametric or non-parametric methods apply. Exact P values, confidence intervals, and relevant descriptive statistics (mean ± standard deviation for parametric data, median and interquartile range for non-parametric data) are reported. Adherence to reporting guidelines such as CONSORT, STROBE, or PRISMA enhances transparency, reproducibility, and scientific rigor.

7.m. Results

The results section serves as the core of the scientific manuscript, where raw data transforms into structured and objective findings. The results section is regarded as the core of the scientific manuscript, where raw data are transformed into structured and objective findings. The purpose of this section is not to interpret or explain the data, but solely to present outcomes with clarity, accuracy, and neutrality. Both positive and negative results are reported transparently, without bias or interpretation.

The findings are organized in accordance with the research question and represent the primary output of the study. Tables, graphs, figures, and charts enhance clarity and effectively present complex data.

No interpretation is included in this section, as analysis and explanation are reserved for subsequent sections. The Results section remains the most factual component of the IMRAD structure.

7.n. Discussion

The discussion section serves as the most interpretative and flexible part of the manuscript, where findings are analyzed in relation to the research question and existing literature. It begins with a brief restatement of the study objectives and key findings, ensuring that the central research problem is clearly addressed.

The focus remains on what the data supports rather than what is expected. Findings are compared with previous studies, and similarities or differences are critically evaluated without unnecessary repetition. Integration of current results with existing evidence strengthens scientific understanding.[10]

The clinical, scientific, and practical implications of the findings are highlighted, while limitations of the study are openly acknowledged. Suggestions for future research directions are also provided.

No new data are introduced in this section. Interpretation strictly relies on previously presented results. Overstatement is avoided, and strong references support interpretations. The section concludes with a summary paragraph highlighting the broader significance of the findings.

7.o. Conclusion

The conclusion section provides a concise synthesis of the study’s key findings, where results translate into meaningful scientific and clinical insights. Conclusions highlight relevance and applicability in real-world practice rather than merely summarizing outcomes.

This section integrates evidence into clinical reasoning, diagnostic improvement, and therapeutic decision-making, thereby supporting evidence-based practice.

8. REFERENCE CITATION

Scientific references support the credibility and academic strength of the manuscript. High-quality literature is selected through databases such as Google Scholar, PubMed/MEDLINE, NCBI, and Scopus.

Reference management tools such as EndNote organize citations efficiently. Bibliographic formatting follows journal-specific guidelines, including APA, Harvard, or Vancouver styles.

In the Vancouver system, references are cited numerically in order of appearance or alphabetically, depending on journal requirements. Only a limited number of authors appear in-text, while full details are provided in the reference list. Standard formats ensure consistency and integrity.[11]

9. HOW TO SELECT AN APPROPRIATE JOURNAL FOR PUBLICATION

Selecting an appropriate journal is a critical step in the research publication process, influencing the visibility, credibility, and academic impact of scientific work. A systematic evaluation of bibliometric indicators and journal characteristics ensures optimal dissemination. This article outlines key metrics and strategic considerations for journal selection in biomedical sciences.[11]

9.a. Understanding journal metrics

SCImago journal rank

The SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) is a Scopus-based metric that evaluates journal prestige by considering both the number of citations received and the significance of the citing sources. Unlike simple citation counts, SJR applies a weighted algorithm, thereby reflecting both the quantity and quality of citations. It allows comparison across subject-specific categories, facilitating informed journal selection within specialized disciplines such as endodontics.

9.b. Quartile classification (SCImago journal rank-based)

Journals are categorized into quartiles based on their ranking within a subject area. Q1 journals represent the top 25% and are associated with high impact, strong reputation, and broad visibility. Q2 journals fall within the 25%–50% range and maintain good academic standing. Q3 journals demonstrate moderate impact, whereas Q4 journals have relatively lower visibility and citation influence. This quartile system assists researchers in aligning manuscript quality with appropriate journal tiers.

9.c. Impact factor

The Impact Factor, provided by Clarivate Analytics, measures the average number of citations received per article published in a journal over a defined period. It remains one of the most widely recognized indicators of journal influence and often serves as a benchmark for journal selection. However, it requires interpretation alongside other metrics due to disciplinary variations.

9.d. Author-level metrics

Author-level indicators such as the h-index and i10-index provide insight into research productivity and citation impact. The h-index reflects the number of publications that receive at least an equal number of citations, indicating both productivity and scholarly influence. The i10-index denotes the number of publications cited at least ten times and highlights sustained research contribution. These metrics help authors gauge appropriate journal targets based on their academic profile.

9.e. Practical considerations in journal selection

In addition to bibliometric indicators, qualitative factors play a crucial role. The journal’s scope and aims align closely with the manuscript topic and methodology. Indexing in databases such as PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science enhances visibility and credibility. Authors also consider the peer-review process, acceptance rates, publication timelines, and open access policies. Vigilance against predatory journals remains essential, and verification through recognized organizations such as the Committee on Publication Ethics and the Directory of Open Access Journals is strongly recommended.

9.f. Strategic approach to submission

A practical strategy involves shortlisting journals within the relevant specialty, reviewing recently published articles for thematic compatibility, and strictly adhering to author guidelines. Tailoring the manuscript according to the target journal’s requirements significantly improves the likelihood of acceptance. Journal selection balances impact metrics with relevance, audience reach, and ethical publishing standards.

10. DECLARATIONS

Conflict of interest statements declare the absence of financial or personal conflicts influencing the research. Ethical statements confirm compliance with applicable guidelines or indicate when not applicable.

11. GRANT APPLICATION

Grant applications present structured research proposals where the rationale, significance, and feasibility of the study are clearly justified. The methodology, expected outcomes, and analytical approaches are systematically described to demonstrate scientific validity.

Multilevel research approaches involving human, animal, and in vitro studies are commonly integrated. Ethical approvals are obtained for studies involving humans, animals, or hazardous materials, ensuring compliance with institutional and international guidelines.

12. CONCLUSION

An original research article represents the culmination of intellectual discipline, where curiosity is refined into evidence and evidence is shaped into meaningful scientific expression. Its significance extends beyond the presentation of data, residing in its ability to communicate with clarity, precision, and purpose. When thoughtful study design, methodological rigor, and structured writing converge, the manuscript evolves into more than an academic requirement; it becomes a credible voice within the scientific community. Such writing not only informs but also guides clinical reasoning, strengthens evidence-based practice, and inspires further inquiry. In its finest form, scientific writing transforms research into a lasting contribution, one that not only answers questions but also elevates understanding, refines professional practice, and advances the continuum of knowledge.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Funding Statement

Nil.