Please Say It Clearly: A Reflection on Proper Style of Scientific Reporting

HSS Journal^® has entered its 17th year with a new publisher, SAGE, and a renewed editorial board. The journal continues to aim to provide a respected forum for the publication of research conducted in the field of musculoskeletal medicine and science. Submissions to the journal have increased steadily in the past year, and we continue to be selective in articles that are of high quality and add substantially to the musculoskeletal body of knowledge. Given these developments, this seems like an appropriate time to review the style of writing the journal seeks.

Scientific writing as with all other forms requires a demanding, creative process. In addition, authors must familiarize themselves with guidelines for the standardized reporting of information in a publishable study. Our field now emphasizes the use of such reporting guidelines as CONSORT for clinical trials, STROBE for observational studies, and PRISMA for systematic reviews (see these and others at https://www.equator-network.org/). Also expected is the use of contemporary outcome instruments and sophisticated statistical methods. Certain fundamental rules for writing focused, brief reports, however, remain unchanged [1].

Although surveys and systematic reviews require individualized structures, most research reports are presented in the traditional IMRaD (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) structure. Each section of the paper must fulfill a specific purpose in a logical flow without overlap with other sections. (Overlap creates redundancy and interrupts cohesion throughout the presentation.) I strongly subscribe to the question-driven style [1], in which the IMRaD structure is employed in the following ways.

The Introduction provides a clear rationale for the study by citing current knowledge as well as the deficiencies in knowledge related to the topic of the research (first 2 paragraphs). The third paragraph introduces the authors’ hypothesis and argument for the need for the research and proposes study questions. The fourth (final) paragraph of the Introduction enumerates these questions in order of importance. These questions are specific and based on actual variables studied. Statistical analysis implies specific questions that should be clearly represented in this final paragraph.

The Methods section, typically the longest section, provides sufficient detail so that any reader could duplicate the study. Here, authors should consult and rely on reporting guidelines such as CONSORT or PRISMA. In general, all data that describe the study population before the intervention or analysis should be reported in Methods (descriptions of the subject population are not results).

The Results section answers the study questions proposed in the Introduction with, ideally, a one-to-one correspondence between the enumerated questions and specific Results paragraphs where the answers are revealed. The lead sentence should be written as a declarative statement of the key result (answer), with the body of the paragraph providing the supportive data. Large amounts of data should be reported in tables and figures, but the text should describe the key points and refer to the tables or figures parenthetically. Sentences that cite figures or tables as subjects or objects (e.g., “The outcome of the survey is reported in Table 1”) have no meaning for the reader and should be avoided. It is far clearer to describe the important point and refer to the table or figure parenthetically.

The Discussion begins by briefly restating the study questions and results and describes their contribution to the literature. It is a common error to repeat Introductory material in the Discussion. The author should discuss only the results here. The second Discussion paragraph should present study limitations, with brief explanations as to how these concerns may or may not alter study conclusions. Discussing limitations in the second position better prepares the reader for the final analysis. The rest of the Discussion addresses each question and compares and contrasts the study findings with those already published. When this is done well the novelty and contribution of the article is obvious. The final paragraph presents conclusions, with a suggestion for future studies and investigations.

Volume 17 issue 2 presents a wide survey of contemporary issues for our field. I enjoyed learning from all of them as they were prepared for publication.