Table 1.

Pathophysiological features in various sections of a research article

Title  Too small or too lengthy  Ambiguous  Unable to attract the readers  Too difficult to cognize  Not easy to catalogue  Poor description of the manuscript  Contains abbreviations	Abstract  Too short or too long  Contains over 300 words  Missing important information  Fails to summarize main findings  Fails to follow structured or unstructured pattern  Citing reference
Introduction  Unable to identify the subject area  Poor settings  Irrelevant literature  Unable to summarize the existing problems  Unable to discuss the hypothesis and problems  Fails to clarify rationale and gaps  Poor citations with old references	Methods  Fails to discuss study design and settings  No inclusion and exclusion criteria  No description of sample size and groupings  No description of measuring tools  No statistical tools description  No Ethical statement  Poor data analysis
Results  Fails to provide key findings  Reports only positive findings  Unable to report negative results  Unable to discuss differences and relationships  Poor description of “significant” and “non-significant” findings  Lengthy analysis and duplication of information	Discussion  Fails to answer to testable hypotheses  No description of results with other’s findings  No discussion of contradictory findings  No alternative explanations  Discussion of prior work without references  No discussion of study strengths & limitations
Conclusions  Too concise and not clear  No reporting of principal findings  Highlighting unproven findings  No accuracy  Vague and biased  No satisfying ending	Declaration  Poor acknowledgement  No declaration of ethical statement  No declaration of conflicts of statement  No declaration of study funding  No declaration of any association with journal etc.,

Avoid all above pathophysiological features while writing the various sections of the scientific paper