JISH – Scientific Writing

How to write a Scientific Article – Part V – Research-Based Articles – Step 1 – Critical Reading

Prashant P. Tamboli, MD (Hom)

Associate Professor, Department of Repertory & Head, Department of Research and Medical Informatics, Dr. M. L. Dhawale Memorial Homoeopathic Institute (MLDMHI), Palghar

*Address of correspondence: Dr. Prashant Tamboli

Email: drtamboli@gmail.com

How to cite this article:

Tamboli PP. How to write a scientific article – Part V – research-based articles – Step 1 – critical reading. Journal of Integrated Standardized Homoeopathy (JISH) 2019; 02(03)

Received on: December 05, 2019

Accepted for Publication: December 26, 2019

Abstract:

Each physician has many powerful experiences. Sharing the experiences with peers gives an opportunity to widen knowledge and in turn benefits the entire Homoeopathic community. The major hurdle most physicians face is how to convert the experience into an article. The first step for writing a scientific article is to understand the process of critical reading and critical thinking. This will help to share the experience in a logical way. The three-phase approach i.e. screening phase, detailed phase, and reflective phase will help the reader to develop critical reading and critical thinking. The author has explained these stages with the help of a published article. One must also know various perspectives i.e. the reader’s, author’s, and publisher’s perspective for an article so that the article can become more enriching. Once the general framework of writing an article is clear, writing specific types of article becomes easy.

CONTENTS:

Introduction

Critical Review of an Article

The Purpose of Reading an Article

Critical reading and Critical thinking

Different perspectives to a scientific article

Steps of reading a scientific paper:

Screening Phase:

Title, Abstract, and Introduction
Quickly glance through the main headings and sub heading

Conclusions

Detailed Phase

Definition and concepts
Tables, graphs, figures, and illustrations

Methodology

Discussion & References

Reflective Phase:

Virtually redoing the work
Think and make notations on what you could have done differently

Summary:

Additional Resources

Introduction

The first step to writing a good scientific article is by reading a number of articles that are related to the field. The aspiring author should learn the technique of critically reading an article. By reading multiple articles and a single article multiple times, the hidden process of writing starts acquiring clarity.

Critical review of an article

The Purpose of Reading an Article:

There are different types of scientific articles. They can broadly be divided into Descriptive and Analytical. The purpose of reading a descriptive article is to know the facts represented in the article, memorize them, and use them in further work. The purpose of reading an analytical article is to understand the cause-effect relationship in the variables or to know the effect of the intervention.

Critical reading is more than just knowing the facts. It is not just concerned about what has been written but also how it has been written. Authors write from certain perspectives. The critical reader tries to locate the perspective influencing the content and the interpretation. The reader will also try to find out if there is adequate evidence provided for the inferences drawn.

The purpose of critical evaluation of an article is:

To understand the author’s purpose – this can be understood by the choice of the content and the language used.
To understand how effective and valid the inferences are – this can be understood by evaluating the evidence provided in the text and the language used and how these are logically linked together to draw conclusions.
To understand biases – these can be understood by identifying the pattern of content and the tone of the statements and the issues highlighted or left out.

Critical reading and Critical thinking

These are two important components of critical evaluation. Homoeopathic physicians can understand these components by using the analogy of totality formation. Critical reading is like identifying the valuable information in the text. It involves careful, analytical, reflective reading. One needs to identify the useful information that the author has used for making conclusions. This is similar to identifying in the case the characteristics necessary for totality formation. Another component is critical thinking that uses prior knowledge for understanding new information and deriving its meaning. In the context of totality formation, this is like evaluating the symptoms in the light of existing philosophy. We use philosophical knowledge to synthesize and render expressions meaningful. Similarly, critical thinking helps to understand evidences used by the author for drawing conclusions that he considers valid. Readers use their own experiences for validating the conclusions by examining the content and evaluating the context. Finally, it allows us to accept or to reject conclusions.

Different perspectives to a scientific article

Another important aspect in the critical reading of the article is knowing the different perspectives of the stakeholders. There are three of these – Reader, Author, and Publisher. A good article will usually balance all these perspectives, thus making it complete.

Reader’s perspective:

A reader may read an article due to a general interest in that specific topic or to understand the methodology used to study a specific research question or to remain updated with recent advances in that subject. The reader likes information which is readily and quickly available and is presented in a clear and easy-to-digest manner. Thus, the reader is usually article- / topic-focused.

Author’s perspective:

The author usually wants to publish more papers, as soon as the work is finished. He has to adhere to the guidelines issued by the journal where he wants to publish. He wants to record more citations as these indicate the value of the work done. Thus, the author is journal-focused.

Publisher’s perspective:

The publisher needs a good reader base. The concern is maintaining a high quality of published articles. Good journals follow the peer review process. The concern is with the general policies like which kind of articles the journal would publish etc. Thus, the publishers are reader-focused.

We will appreciate the diverse points of view of all these individuals who participate in the scientific article process. All this has an impact on the author’s selection of journal, publisher’s selection of article, and reader’s purpose of reading the article. Therefore, critical reading of an article should include the following points:

Who are the authors? Are they consistently working on the topic?
What is the impact factor of the journal?
Is the journal indexed in well-known indexing agencies?
What are the objectives of the journal? Does the published article fit in the general publication policies of the journal?
How much time is taken by the journal for reviewing the article and accepting the paper?
What is the reader’s purpose in reading the article?

Steps of reading a scientific paper:

Most of the scientific articles are written in the IMRD format, which is Introduction, Method, Results, and Discussion. Each of these sections normally contains easily recognized conventional features. Careful reading will lead to quick comprehension. Many beginners find it difficult to understand an article, especially if the contents are not familiar. The following method may help in comprehending an article: one can divide the reading of an article in three phases:

Screening Phase
Detailed Phase
Reflective Phase

To demonstrate these phases in reading an article we have referred to an article written by Tiwari NL & Tamboli PP, printed in the Indian Journal of Research in Homoeopathy (published by the Central Council of Homoeopathy in Research, New Delhi).

You can refer this article by using the following link –

http://www.ijrh.org/downloadpdf.asp?issn=0974-7168;year=2008;volume=2;issue=3;spage=28;epage=36;aulast=Tiwari;type=2

Screening Phase:

In this phase the approach is from general to particular. This is the phase where you will read the article to get a ‘Bird’s eye view’. The purpose of this phase is to quickly skim through the article to decide if the article is useful. Of course, the prerequisite to this stage is clarity of purpose in reading the article. The screening phase should take a maximum ten to fifteen minutes for a beginner and much less for the expert. In this phase, one should carefully read

Title, Abstract, and Introduction
Quickly glance through the main headings and sub-headings
Conclusions

Title: Authors usually formulate the title carefully and it can provide more information than one thinks. This will point out the major idea (variables) in the study. It will also indicate the participants in the study and sometimes the research design. The reader can understand if he is also working on the same variables and with similar participants.

Abstract: The abstract gives the summary of the paper. If written properly, it will give an idea about the main issue/s addressed by the author, how the study has been conducted, and what are the main results. Dana MacGregor, Research Associate from the University of York, has beautifully summarized about the abstract: “The abstract on the other hand is what the author wants the take home message to be. Because most of us only read the abstract on PubMed before we even open the paper. It has to attract the right audience, give concise and precise summary of what the main conclusions are from the data and still intrigue you enough so that you read the rest of it – and therefore hopefully cite it in your work! The abstract is to the paper what a movie trailer is to a film. It has to advertise and give you the plot without giving away the big chase scene.”

Introduction: The introduction gives clarity about the starting point of the author’s work i.e. his research question. It gives the background information related to the study so that the reader understands the context of the study. It also helps us to understand if the results presented in the paper actually address the questions which were originally stated. It will give a gist of what has been known about the topic in hand and where the knowledge gap is.

Main headings & sub headings: One can quickly glance through the headings and sub headings so that one will get an idea of how the paper is organized. One can easily judge if the study can answer the questions raised by the author.

Conclusions: Conclusions should answer specifically the research question/s raised in the study and also give some indications for any future study.

Diabetes Article:

Title: Diabetes mellitus – Defining scope and clinical approach for homoeopathic management

The title indicates that the authors are working on the important variable of Diabetes mellitus. It further indicates that the article is about the scope of Homoeopathy and possibly about the clinical approach. However, the clinical approach is not clear from the title.

Abstract: After reading the abstract, readers get a better clarity about the approach to the management of diabetes i.e. Constitutional and organ-specific remedies. It gives results indicating the scope of Homoeopathy. The authors have also mentioned about managing individualized susceptibility, which possibly will be clear only after reading the article. Therefore, if the reader is interested in knowing how susceptibility plays a role, he should read the introduction which stresses on Susceptibility further.

Introduction: This section further reinforces the philosophy of Homoeopathic management i.e. to manage the susceptibility.

Heading & Sub-heading: The heading indicates that the authors have followed the same plan of managing the susceptibility giving further details of assessing the susceptibility, grading it and also dealing with the qualitative part of susceptibility i.e. miasm.

At the end of this screening phase, one can get a clear idea about which category of paper it is. Is it a descriptive article giving a lot of information or an analytical one correlating two variables? What has been the context of the study i.e. the background? One can evaluate a study only on understanding the background, just like a Homoeopath understanding the patient in his / her background. Is the paper drawing any valid conclusions or contributing to new knowledge? Is it written with clarity? This stage will decide if the paper is relevant for your purpose. Will it go in the next phase? The most important point here is – if a reader cannot understand important aspects of the paper in a short time, he / she will never read through the full paper.

Detailed Phase

In this phase, one needs to read the paper with more care by going into details without doing proof-reading. Here, the main focus is on understanding the conduct of the study. Moreover, are the results in tune with the research question defined by the author? Usually, beginners will take two to three hours to complete this stage. The following areas need careful reading:

Definition and concepts

Tables, graphs, figures, and illustrations
Methodology
Discussion & References

Definition and Concepts: One needs to segregate the jargon from the main points. One should carefully read the subsections where usually authors explain the jargon or technical terms. If these are not clear, one should read the definitions from standard sources. Do not just overlook the terms that you do not understand. One needs to understand the concepts that have been discussed so that the details can be grasped easily.

Tables, graphs, figures, and illustrations: One must carefully look at the figures, diagrams, tables, and graphs to understand how the data has been organized. Look carefully at the headings and the legends, examine if the axis has been properly labelled in the graphs. One should try to identify the patterns of observations. This section will help us to understand how the author is trying to convey his observations. One can examine if they are in tune with the research question under study. Tables will give adequate information about various independent and confounding variables that may affect the results. One can correlate if the author has taken care of these variables while arriving at conclusions. The reader should also try to examine the correctness of the statistical tests used. If you are not well acquainted with these and the results obtained are very much important for your proposed study, you must discuss these tests with the statistician.

Methodology: One can give meaning to the results on examining how the study has been carried out. Therefore, the result section and method section should be read simultaneously. One should read the relevant section of the methodology while examining the table. This will provide more clarity about how variables are controlled in this study. Some knowledge about research methodology will allow a better grasp of this section.

Discussion & References: This is a relatively open section where the author has freedom to explain in his own way how he has interpreted the results. What do the results tell about the original research question? How do these results fit in with the work done by other workers in the field? In that regard, what references has the author used for finding the similarities and dissimilarities from the work done on the same topic / research question? Discussion may contain some speculation and generalizations. One needs to carefully examine if these are supported by adequate citation from literature. This section indicates how the findings have some implications in the real world and what further work can be done regarding this topic. This will provide the continuity of thinking presented in the paper.

At the end of this phase, the reader will understand the importance of the findings in the specific areas and at the general level.

Diabetes Article:

Definition, Concepts & References:

It is important to understand the concept of susceptibly accurately and in the way the authors have referred. The terms are not defined in the article. Therefore, it is important to look for the references the author has given. These are provided by Stuart Close & Dhawale, M. L. The reader needs to become familiar with these concepts in order to understand the concept of susceptibility as used by the authors in this article.

Tables & Graphs: They are very illustrative indicating the process of assessment, the impact of the Miasms and indications to understand the impact.

Methodology: it gives the details of how all other independent and confounding variables are managed, thus giving more weightage to accept the effect of Homoeopathic medicines in the management of diabetes.

Reflective Phase:

In order to understand the finer aspects of the paper, one needs to go to this final phase. Here, the reader needs to virtually attempt to re-implement the work. The reader should make the same assumptions as the author and try to recreate the work. In this way,the reader can understand the innovations and the many challenges and hidden assumptions. In this phase, one should think how one would have presented this work and note the points one would make differently. This will also help one to do the work differently. One will also be able to reflect on the tools used for the study. In this way, one can understand the challenges and emerging biases and how they were overcome by the authors. At the end of this stage, the reader will be able to identify the strong and weak points of the study. One can also pinpoint the interpreted assumptions, missing citations and potential issues in the research design. This stage may take longer time – around 5 to 6 hours for the beginner.

Diabetes Article:

The major challenge here is getting patients who will follow the suggested lifestyle. Diet and exercise are major variables and authors have managed that by following a meticulous procedure. How to achieve the patient’s compliance in day-to-day practice is one of the major concerns while replicating the study. About treatment, some of the Homoeopaths manage the diabetes patient by giving organ medicines and Constitutional medicine simultaneously, so one needs to explore if some modification in the research design is possible. The reflection will depend on the research question the reader has in mind.

Summary:

Critical evaluation of the article is important to get maximum benefit from any article.
Critical reading and critical thinking are the two important skills one needs to acquire.
One needs to know the context of the study for understanding the study findings.
The reader should know the author’s perspective and have clarity of the research question in his mind while critically reading the article.
For critical evaluation, the approach must be from the generals to particulars.
The article, for better understanding, can be read in three phases – screening phase, detailed phase, and reflective phase.
One must look for congruency in an article by interconnecting various sections.
One must remember that no paper can be perfect and identifying the fault is not the purpose of the critical evaluation but to know the positive points and the areas that need further attention.

What next?

In this article, the author has discussed the critical reading as well as writing an article. While writing a scientific article, the first point one needs to keep in mind is the type of article you are writing. Is it sharing one powerful clinical experience with the help of case report, sharing the observations through the series of cases – a case series report, sharing cross-sectional study – a survey report or interventional study to understand the cause-effect relationship of variables or impact of interventions? All these are considered as ‘original scientific articles’ and one must know how to present these experiences scientifically. After knowing the first step of writing scientific article in general, we need to know the second step i.e. the specific points on which various types of scientific articles are written. In the next issue, the author will discuss how to write a Case Report.

Additional Resources

Acknowledgements:

I sincerely thank Dr. Kumar Dhawale and Mrs. R. M. Belsare for guiding me to write this article.