how to begin an article for publication

• Discoveries
• Right Journal
• Journal Metrics
• Journal Fit
• Abbreviation
• In-Text Citations
• Bibliographies
• Writing an Article
• Peer Review Types
• Acknowledgements
• Withdrawing a Paper
• Form Letter
• ISO, ANSI, CFR
• Google Scholar
• Journal Manuscript Editing
• Research Manuscript Editing

Book Editing

• Manuscript Editing Services

Medical Editing

• Bioscience Editing
• Physical Science Editing
• PhD Thesis Editing Services
• PhD Editing
• Master’s Proofreading
• Bachelor’s Editing
• Dissertation Proofreading Services
• Best Dissertation Proofreaders
• Masters Dissertation Proofreading
• PhD Proofreaders
• Proofreading PhD Thesis Price
• Journal Article Editing
• Book Editing Service
• Editing and Proofreading Services
• Research Paper Editing
• Medical Manuscript Editing
• Academic Editing
• Social Sciences Editing
• Academic Proofreading
• PhD Theses Editing
• Dissertation Proofreading
• Proofreading Rates UK
• Medical Proofreading
• PhD Proofreading Services UK
• Academic Proofreading Services UK

Medical Editing Services

• Life Science Editing
• Biomedical Editing
• Environmental Science Editing
• Pharmaceutical Science Editing
• Economics Editing
• Psychology Editing
• Sociology Editing
• Archaeology Editing
• History Paper Editing
• Anthropology Editing
• Law Paper Editing
• Engineering Paper Editing
• Technical Paper Editing
• Philosophy Editing
• PhD Dissertation Proofreading
• Lektorat Englisch
• Akademisches Lektorat
• Lektorat Englisch Preise
• Wissenschaftliches Lektorat
• Lektorat Doktorarbeit

PhD Thesis Editing

• Thesis Proofreading Services
• PhD Thesis Proofreading
• Proofreading Thesis Cost
• Proofreading Thesis
• Thesis Editing Services
• Professional Thesis Editing
• Thesis Editing Cost
• Proofreading Dissertation
• Dissertation Proofreading Cost
• Dissertation Proofreader
• Correção de Artigos Científicos
• Correção de Trabalhos Academicos
• Serviços de Correção de Inglês
• Correção de Dissertação
• Correção de Textos Precos
• 定額 ネイティブチェック
• Copy Editing
• FREE Courses
• Revision en Ingles
• Revision de Textos en Ingles
• Revision de Tesis
• Revision Medica en Ingles
• Revision de Tesis Precio
• Revisão de Artigos Científicos
• Revisão de Trabalhos Academicos
• Serviços de Revisão de Inglês
• Revisão de Dissertação
• Revisão de Textos Precos
• Corrección de Textos en Ingles
• Corrección de Tesis
• Corrección de Tesis Precio
• Corrección Medica en Ingles
• Corrector ingles

Select Page

How To Write a Journal Article

Posted by Rene Tetzner | Sep 6, 2021 | Paper Writing Advice | 0 |

How To Write a Journal Article for Publication in Twelve Essential Steps Original articles intended for publication are the most common means of disseminating the processes, results and implications of advanced research, so it is imperative that academics and scientists who wish to publish and share their work know how to write a journal article successfully. Although there are significant variations in manuscript requirements among disciplines and publishers, the writing tips I present below apply to most scholarly articles and journals across a wide range of research fields and specialisations.

Step 1: The first question to ask yourself as you begin drafting your paper or searching for a journal to publish it is what type of article will be appropriate for the material you wish to communicate. Original research, for instance, is usually reported in an original research article, whereas an evaluation of published scholarship on a topic would be written as a review article. Choosing the right type of article before you start is essential.

Step 2: Either before or after you draft your article, you will need to learn about periodicals in the field and choose one as your target journal. The scope, aims and concerns published on the journal’s website should be appropriate for your research, and the journal must publish the kind of paper necessary to communicate all important aspects of your work.

Step 3: Once you have decided on the journal to which you will be submitting your article, you should study the journal’s guidelines for authors. In some cases these will provide a great deal of information about how to write a journal article for publication; in others very little help will be offered. Either way, the guidelines must be followed with care as you prepare your article, so pay close attention to details, examples and restrictions.

Step 4: With the journal’s guidelines and your research notes by your side (or at least firmly in mind), you are ready to outline the structure and content of your article. A scientific research article is likely to use a predictable structure of introduction, literature review, methods, results, discussion and conclusions, but other fields and types of paper might offer greater freedom. Structure should never be neglected, however, since clear and logical organisation increases accessibility and reader comprehension.

Step 5: Preparing tables, figures, appendices and other supplementary materials before you actually start drafting the paper is an excellent strategy when you are struggling with how to write a journal article. The production of these tools for readers can help an author analyse and interpret findings more effectively, and writing the main text with these tools in hand tends to reduce unnecessary repetition of information.

Step 6: For many academics and scientists, starting to draft the text is the most difficult part of writing an article for publication. Beginning can be rendered easier by writing the separate sections not in the order in which they will ultimately appear, but in an order that better reflects the research process. The methods can therefore be described first, with the report of results, the discussion and the conclusions following. Once you know the contents of these parts, the introduction, background, abstract and list of references can be added.

Step 7: Be sure to take the time to assess your methods, analyse your results and interpret your findings thoroughly. Reporting what you did and what you discovered is not enough for a research paper intended for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. You will also need to tell your audience what your research means, why it is innovative and how it might be productively used by future researchers and practitioners.

Step 8: Remember as you work out how to write a journal article that there is simply no substitute for excellent writing. Scholarly prose must be both clear and correct to communicate research processes and results effectively, and the style must be both formal and appropriate for your discipline or area of specialisation. Reading published articles in your field and especially in your target journal will give you a good idea of the kind of writing you will need to submit.

Step 9: Proofread, edit and revise your draft repeatedly until you have eliminated all errors of fact, language and typing. Too many authors neglect this time-consuming aspect of how to write a journal article and suffer the consequences in the form of rejections and revision requests. As the person who knows your research better than anyone else, you are the person to ensure that your article intended for publication does that research justice.

Step 10: Recruit mentors, colleagues and friends to read your article and offer feedback. Researchers who work in your field and have successfully published their own academic or scientific writing will be able to comment constructively on research content and presentation. If English grammar, tricky references or other challenges of language and formatting prove problematic, a professional proofreader or editor can help.

Step 11: After reader feedback has been considered and the final revisions are complete, submit your manuscript exactly as the journal’s instructions indicate. Submission via an online form is an efficient and common method, but even if the journal’s preferences seem outdated, they must be observed. Unless the guidelines suggest that a cover letter to the journal editor would be unwelcome, be sure to include one to introduce your research and article in an engaging way.

Step 12: Finally, it is likely that your thoughts will be with your manuscript after you have submitted it and even that a host of ideas for further refinements will pop into your mind the instant the article is beyond your grasp. Take advantage of this impulse as you await a response by jotting your ideas down. If a request for revisions arrives from the editor, your notes are likely to prove incredibly helpful.

You might be interested in Services offered by Proof-Reading-Service.com

Journal editing.

Journal article editing services

PhD thesis editing services

Scientific Editing

Manuscript editing.

Manuscript editing services

Expert Editing

Expert editing for all papers

Research Editing

Research paper editing services

Professional book editing services

How To Write a Journal Article Reliable Tips are Designed To Help Authors Writing a Journal Article

Related Posts

How To Write the Findings Section of a Research Paper

September 2, 2021

Tips on How To Write a Journal Article

August 30, 2021

How To Write Highlights for an Academic or Scientific Paper

September 7, 2021

Tips on How To Write an Effective Figure Legend

August 27, 2021

Our Recent Posts

Our review ratings

• Examples of Research Paper Topics in Different Study Areas Score: 98%
• Dealing with Language Problems – Journal Editor’s Feedback Score: 95%
• Making Good Use of a Professional Proofreader Score: 92%
• How To Format Your Journal Paper Using Published Articles Score: 95%
• Journal Rejection as Inspiration for a New Perspective Score: 95%

Explore our Categories

• Abbreviation in Academic Writing (4)
• Career Advice for Academics (5)
• Dealing with Paper Rejection (11)
• Grammar in Academic Writing (5)
• Help with Peer Review (7)
• How To Get Published (146)
• Paper Writing Advice (17)
• Referencing & Bibliographies (16)

• Visit the University of Nebraska–Lincoln
• Apply to the University of Nebraska–Lincoln
• Give to the University of Nebraska–Lincoln

Search Form

Writing for publication, part 1 what makes a paper publishable (6:17).

Let's begin thinking about what makes a paper publishable by looking at a hypothetical paper, "Guppies Love Cheerios." Even with a set of valid, novel, and statistically significant findings, research isn't necessarily publishable. The work also needs to contribute to the human knowledge base in a meaningful way, and it always helps to relate the work in an interesting and compelling storyline.

Part 2 Common Reasons Articles are Rejected (or Accepted) (9:55)

An article can be rejected for eight basic reasons, according to Dr. Peter Thrower, editor-in-chief of Carbon :

• technical reasons (e.g., plagiarism, or not following the journal's Instructions for Authors).
• improper content for the journal's readership.
• incomplete work.
• procedural or statistical analysis flaws.
• Unjustified conclusions
• Incremental or insignificant work
• Incomprehensibility
• Marginally interesting to editors or readership

According to Elizabeth Zwaaf of Elsevier , there are also eight basic reasons your work would be accepted for publication, one of which is that your article tells a good story. Part 3 explains what is meant by that.

Part 3 How To Tell A Good "Story" In Your Article (10:00)

The "research story" of a publishable article is true, credible, and interesting. It should have a beginning, middle, and end, where each part leads the reader to keep reading. A conceptual framework for this kind of story looks like an hourglass. The top funnel sets the context of the research and identifies gaps in the knowledge that validates the purpose and questions of the work described in the new publication. With these concepts in mind, what advice could you offer to the author of "Guppies Love Cheerios?"

Part 4 Strategies for Selecting Journals for Submission (11:33)

Begin selecting an appropriate venue for a new article by taking inventory of journals cited by the papers you reference in your work. Instructions to Authors usually include Aim and Scope of the journal. Consider the following as well: the type of article you've written, the target audience, the types of papers each journal publishes, typical time from submission to publication, the "impact factor" of the journal, and publication models and costs to authors. Be wary of "fake journals" that solicit submissions and publish without valid peer review.

Part 5 The Writing Process - Prewriting and Abstract (11:37)

Start writing by following the Instructions for Authors for the journal you've selected. Writing and formatting your paper properly now will save a lot of time later. Another time-saving strategy is to use RefWorks (available free to UNL personnel) or another reference manager to track your resources, format your citations; many of these resources also provide tips on assigning authorship, and writing titles, keywords, abstracts, and cover letters.

Part 6 How Will You Write The Cover Letter? (4:44)

A good way to organize your thoughts—and tell your research story—is as follows:

• address your general topic to provide your readers context for your work;
• describe a problem circumscribed by the topic at hand and explain why it's important;
• present your solution to the problem; and
• explain the attendant benefits of your findings with respect to the described problem.

This approach is especially helpful in writing a submission letter to the editor of the journal. In addition, be sure to follow the journal's Instructions to Authors to prepare your letter.

Part 7 The Scholarly Publication Process (4:08)

Submitting your manuscript to your chosen journal will be relatively straightforward if you're prepared according to the suggestions in this seminar and the Instructions to Authors. You'll almost certainly submit your materials online. Clicking Submit will set in motion a review process with one of the following results. Your manuscript will be

• accepted as-is for publication (not likely, but it's possible);
• accepted, with revisions;
• rejected, with chance to resubmit; or

What you do now as the author is the subject of the next video.

Part 8 Dealing Effectively With Reviewers' Reports (8:12)

You've heard back from the editor and your reviewers have suggested some revisions. It happens to everyone, so it's best to address the suggestions objectively and respond effectively. This video provides some ways to do that.

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Writing for an academic journal: 10 tips

1) Have a strategy, make a plan

Why do you want to write for journals? What is your purpose? Are you writing for research assessment? Or to make a difference? Are you writing to have an impact factor or to have an impact? Do you want to develop a profile in a specific area? Will this determine which journals you write for? Have you taken their impact factors into account?

Have you researched other researchers in your field – where have they published recently? Which group or conversation can you see yourself joining? Some people write the paper first and then look for a 'home' for it, but since everything in your article – content, focus, structure, style – will be shaped for a specific journal, save yourself time by deciding on your target journal and work out how to write in a way that suits that journal.

Having a writing strategy means making sure you have both external drivers – such as scoring points in research assessment or climbing the promotion ladder – and internal drivers – which means working out why writing for academic journals matters to you. This will help you maintain the motivation you'll need to write and publish over the long term. Since the time between submission and publication can be up to two years (though in some fields it's much less) you need to be clear about your motivation.

2) Analyse writing in journals in your field

Take a couple of journals in your field that you will target now or soon. Scan all the abstracts over the past few issues. Analyse them: look closely at all first and last sentences. The first sentence (usually) gives the rationale for the research, and the last asserts a 'contribution to knowledge'. But the word 'contribution' may not be there – it's associated with the doctorate. So which words are used? What constitutes new knowledge in this journal at this time? How can you construct a similar form of contribution from the work you did? What two sentences will you write to start and end your abstract for that journal?

Scan other sections of the articles: how are they structured? What are the components of the argument? Highlight all the topic sentences – the first sentences of every paragraph – to show the stages in the argument. Can you see an emerging taxonomy of writing genres in this journal? Can you define the different types of paper, different structures and decide which one will work best in your paper? Select two types of paper: one that's the type of paper you can use as a model for yours, and one that you can cite in your paper, thereby joining the research conversation that is ongoing in that journal.

3) Do an outline and just write

Which type of writer are you: do you always do an outline before you write, or do you just dive in and start writing? Or do you do a bit of both? Both outlining and just writing are useful, and it is therefore a good idea to use both. However, make your outline very detailed: outline the main sections and calibrate these with your target journal.

What types of headings are normally used there? How long are the sections usually? Set word limits for your sections, sub-sections and, if need be, for sub-sub-sections. This involves deciding about content that you want to include, so it may take time, and feedback would help at this stage.

When you sit down to write, what exactly are you doing:using writing to develop your ideas or writing to document your work? Are you using your outline as an agenda for writing sections of your article? Define your writing task by thinking about verbs – they define purpose: to summarise, overview, critique, define, introduce, conclude etc.

4) Get feedback from start to finish

Even at the earliest stages, discuss your idea for a paper with four or five people, get feedback on your draft abstract. It will only take them a couple of minutes to read it and respond. Do multiple revisions before you submit your article to the journal.

5) Set specific writing goals and sub-goals

Making your writing goals specific means defining the content, verb and word length for the section. This means not having a writing goal like, 'I plan to have this article written by the end of the year' but 'My next writing goal is to summarise and critique twelve articles for the literature review section in 800 words on Tuesday between 9am and 10.30'. Some people see this as too mechanical for academic writing, but it is a way of forcing yourself to make decisions about content, sequence and proportion for your article.

6) Write with others

While most people see writing as a solitary activity, communal writing – writing with others who are writing – can help to develop confidence, fluency and focus. It can help you develop the discipline of regular writing. Doing your academic writing in groups or at writing retreats are ways of working on your own writing, but – if you unplug from email, internet and all other devices – also developing the concentration needed for regular, high-level academic writing.

At some point – ideally at regular intervals – you can get a lot more done if you just focus on writing. If this seems like common sense, it isn't common practice. Most people do several things at once, but this won't always work for regular journal article writing. At some point, it pays to privilege writing over all other tasks, for a defined period, such as 90 minutes, which is long enough to get something done on your paper, but not so long that it's impossible to find the time.

7) Do a warm up before you write

While you are deciding what you want to write about, an initial warm up that works is to write for five minutes, in sentences, in answer to the question: 'What writing for publication have you done [or the closest thing to it], and what do you want to do in the long, medium and short term?'

Once you have started writing your article, use a variation on this question as a warm up – what writing for this project have you done, and what do you want to do in the long, medium and short term? Top tip: end each session of writing with a 'writing instruction' for yourself to use in your next session, for example, 'on Monday from 9 to 10am, I will draft the conclusion section in 500 words'.

As discussed, if there are no numbers, there are no goals. Goals that work need to be specific, and you need to monitor the extent to which you achieve them. This is how you learn to set realistic targets.

8) Analyse reviewers' feedback on your submission

What exactly are they asking you to do? Work out whether they want you to add or cut something. How much? Where? Write out a list of revision actions. When you resubmit your article include this in your report to the journal, specifying how you have responded to the reviewers' feedback. If your article was rejected, it is still useful to analyse feedback, work out why and revise it for somewhere else.

Most feedback will help you improve your paper and, perhaps, your journal article writing, but sometimes it may seem overheated, personalised or even vindictive. Some of it may even seem unprofessional. Discuss reviewers' feedback – see what others think of it. You may find that other people – even eminent researchers – still get rejections and negative reviews; any non-rejection is a cause for celebration. Revise and resubmit as soon as you can.

9) Be persistent, thick-skinned and resilient

These are qualities that you may develop over time – or you may already have them. It may be easier to develop them in discussion with others who are writing for journals.

10) Take care of yourself

Writing for academic journals is highly competitive. It can be extremely stressful. Even making time to write can be stressful. And there are health risks in sitting for long periods, so try not to sit writing for more than an hour at a time. Finally, be sure to celebrate thoroughly when your article is accepted. Remind yourself that writing for academic journals is what you want to do – that your writing will make a difference in some way.

These points are taken from the 3rd edition of Writing for Academic Journals .

Rowena Murray is professor in education and director of research at the University of the West of Scotland – follow it on Twitter @UniWestScotland

This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional . Looking for your next university role? Browse Guardian jobs for thousands of the latest academic, administrative and research posts

• Universities
• Professional development
• Higher education
• Arts and humanities

Comments (…)

Most viewed.

How to Write a Scholarly Article for Publication (15 Tips)

When researchers and scientists begin graduate school, few know that they will actually be writing much of the time. Because the focus in graduate school is on obtaining data and results, it is no surprise that most scientists aren't taught how to write well .

However, professional researchers write scholarly articles for publication, grant proposals, abstracts for conferences, theses or dissertations (if they get a Master’s or a PhD degree), books, conference presentations , and maybe even an acceptance speech for a Nobel Prize . Even if you think you know everything there is to know about writing in science, we encourage you to keep reading.

This is because there are some great research studies out there that unfortunately have been written very poorly in peer reviewed academic journals, even by good and experienced scientists. This may have nothing to do with a researcher not being a native English speaker. Rather, it may have everything to do with knowing (or not knowing) how to write a scholarly article .

And, even if you know how to write, maybe our tips will give you new insights or a better way of thinking about writing journal articles. After all, we all want to be more efficient researchers.

But first, what is a scholarly article?

A scholarly article is written on a specific topic of original research for a specific audience (other researchers in that field). Generally, a scholarly article is published in a peer reviewed journal. It typically details an original study and the results obtained. It should provide insights into the relevance of the study to the field of study. Alternative names for a scholarly article are a scientific manuscript, a journal article, an academic article, a scientific paper, a scholarly journal article, or an academic journal article. You can search for scholarly articles via the widely used Google Scholar or via other paid services, such as Web of Science .

How to write a scholarly article for publication (15 Tips):

1. make a template for all future manuscripts., 2. learn what to include and what not to include in each section., 3. don’t repeat yourself even if it is written in a different way., 4. start with the methods section., 5. write the other sections in this order: introduction, results and discussion, conclusions, and then the abstract., 6. gather your bibliography before you write the introduction and results and discussion sections., 7. make your figures and tables first. then, discuss them in order in your results and discussion section., 8. understand that the most successful and well-cited peer reviewed articles not only have great results but also explain the value of their results., 9. write the conclusions when you are fresh., 10. write the abstract last. but, first learn what should not be in an abstract., 11. think carefully about your title., 12. write the shorter sections when you need a break from working on the other longer sections., 13. reread the entire manuscript when you have written all sections. add or fill in any gaps you left. make sure it flows well., 14. if you write in your native language (not english), use simple, short sentences that will be easy to translate into english., 15. get a good translator if you did not write the original manuscript in english. then, have the paper proofread or edited by a professional editor or at least a colleague..

Ok, so that’s the list. Now, let's delve into the details of each of these tips.

1. Make a template for all your future manuscripts.

For example, write down the major sections in papers from journals in the field where you want to publish your research. You can also search online for the manuscript template of the journal where you want to submit your scientific paper. By making a template, you will always have somewhere to start when you begin writing a new article. This can be especially helpful if each of your papers is in the same field and on the same subject.

Become familiar with how to write an abstract , how to write an introduction, how to list your experimental (or computational) methods and your reagents and materials, how to explain your results, and how to make your conclusion section different from your abstract.

Knowing the ins and outs of these sections is crucial.

If you have read many peer reviewed articles, you may already have a good idea of what each of these sections typically includes. Also, you may have already developed you own opinions on what to include in each section. But, keep reading. We will provide some new tips on some of these sections for your manuscript. We also have other articles in our blog on some of these topics that may interest you.

3. Don’t repeat yourself even if it is rewritten in a different way.

So many researchers make this mistake. For example, the same exact sentence is often in both the abstract and in the methods or the conclusion section of their article. This may be the result of writing the abstract last and taking a few sentences from each section of the paper. This is understandable. But, your reader doesn't want to see the same sentence twice (or even the same information twice). They are busy scientists like you.

So, be concise and change up your wording enough so it doesn't sound like you are repeating yourself. Science Magazine even explicitly states in its manuscript template to “avoid repeating the conclusions at the end.” This will prevent potential issues with journal editors and peer reviewers .

4. Start with the Experimental section or Materials and Methods section.

This section of a scientific manuscript is the easiest to write. Write down what you did in your experiment, and the details will naturally come up that you need to fill in.

Before you know it, you will likely have one page of your paper written, which is a great starting point. This will give you momentum for writing the other sections.

Once complete, you should have a very good handle on what you did in your study. You should then be able to write the other sections with a clearer understanding of your experiments.

For most fields of study, these are the major sections that you need to include when you write an academic article. The introduction is the second easiest to write, followed by the results and discussion.

Sometimes, you should split up the results and discussion into two sections. But, this depends upon the journal's requirements and/or your personal style.

Leave the conclusions, abstract, and title for last. This way you have time to think about your study's broader impact and its relevance to your field of study.

6. Do your literature search and gather your bibliography before you write the Introduction and Results and Discussion sections.

This will provide you with previous studies to compare your work with in your results and discussion section. It will also help you introduce your study in your introduction.

You will be able to see what researchers in your field think are important details to include in their introductions. For example, if your study is on electron transfer mechanisms and all other studies explain the definition of electron transfer in their introductions, you may want to consider writing something similar as well. In case you were wondering, here’s how Wikipedia defines electron transfer:

But, be careful not to plagiarize other studies (this is a big no-no!). Add in some useful background information that prior similar papers have left out. You will want to add value to the body of literature on your topic, not rehash what others have already stated.

These are a few examples of how to write your introduction based on information in prior published papers.

There may be many other connections and gaps in your field of study. You should mention them in your introduction once you read and gather the appropriate bibliography.

If you want to know why you need to cite sources, we have a popular article on the importance of referencing .

Make your figures and tables first before you start writing about your data/results. Then, organize their order. Once you know what their order should be in your scholarly article, you have an outline for your results section.

Then, start with Figure 1. Describe it and tell what the takeaway message is and what result it shows. If you have organized your figures in the proper order, your discussion about Figure 1 will naturally lead to Figure 2 (or to Table 1). If it doesn't naturally progress, change the figure order if needed. Then, continue writing about them in order.

This method should make it easy to write about all your data and results. When appropriate, mix in comparisons of your data with prior studies’ results. You should start to see the bigger picture of why your results matter.

Don’t worry that you are going through an ‘analysis’ phase of your results while writing your scientific manuscript. This is normal.

Sometimes, it isn't until you write down your results and analyze them in relation to other studies that you begin to see the bigger picture. It's hard to do that sometimes when you only have figures and tables in front of you.

Writing the paper can actually help define the value of your study.

8. Understand that the most successful and well-cited peer reviewed articles (and most highly cited authors ) not only have great results but also explain the value of their results.

You need not be boastful, but you should clearly state the relevance of your results.

These types of sentences are critical. With these sentences, you should tell the reader why they should care.

How does your study fill a void?

How is it useful to future studies and innovations?

Are your methods new and extremely useful?

Answering these questions can differentiate a great article in Nature from a mediocre paper in a low-tier journal. Mediocre articles give their results and state that the results are important. But, they do not explain why they are important. Great papers explain the relevance well and give details on why.

Receive Free Grammar and Publishing Tips via Email

The conclusion section can be tough. It can be easy to perform a study but hard to make conclusions or discuss why the results happened.

And, let's face it, you are tired of this project by now and just want to move on to the next exciting study. Writing is often the most dreaded part of science for most researchers.

Yet, it is the main way that you tell other researchers and colleagues about your original studies and results.

So, make writing the conclusion section easier by being kind to yourself when you get to this point. Look back at the other sections you have already written. Now, marvel at your progress (even if you have written many papers before, it's always an accomplishment!).

OK, now take the day off (or better yet, work on some other project), and come back to the conclusion section tomorrow. Then, get up early, have a nice breakfast, and sit down to work. Ready. Set. Write.

Write what you think was most important about your study and results.

Why does this research even matter?

What is the link between your study and prior similar studies?

What, if anything, was groundbreaking about your results?

Answer at least some of these questions in your conclusions. Then, you are on your way to writing why the study is relevant.

Put the pieces together.

Make a conjecture about what mechanisms are at work (this may be best laid out in your results and discussion section if it requires major discussion).

Make estimations.

Make projections, and talk about what is still lacking that requires future study.

You may even gain new ideas for future studies, future grant proposals, or your dissertation (if you are a student). Then, reread it to make sure you included all your “conclusions."

The abstract is not just sentences taken from the main manuscript.

The abstract is not a literature review. It should not only provide background information without mentioning the results of your study.

The abstract is not a mini-methods section. You should not include every detail about how you performed your study.

The abstract should generally have this outline:

1 sentence on background,

1 sentence on the purpose and what you studied generally ,

1-2 sentences on your methods,

1-2 sentences on your results,

1 conclusion sentence, and

1 outlook sentence.

Of course, you may need to adjust these numbers depending upon your specific study. You can find some rules for writing a good abstract in our past article on this topic.

The title of your scholarly article is what readers will see first. If it's not compelling and concise but informative, readers won’t continue reading the paper or even the abstract.

This means you could miss out on a citation. So, think long and hard about what words to include in the title of your scholarly article.

This includes thinking about what keywords should be in your title .

Keywords are the words that researchers may use to search for your topic.

Write the Acknowledgements, Supporting Information , and list of keywords when you need a break.

For example, if you are writing the conclusions but are having trouble making a connection with prior studies, stop!

Instead, spend some time on the shorter sections so that you continue your momentum with writing. This will give your brain a break for a while from the main task. You will have a sense of accomplishment as you continue to make progress and will not get discouraged.

As an example, often determining who to acknowledge is easier than writing your conclusions.

But, don't use this advice as an excuse to not get back to the main task of writing the main sections of the paper. To keep this from being too much of a distraction, set a timer for 30 minutes. During this time, you can relax a little and work on minor sections of the article.

Then, get back to work on the bigger sections after the time is up. You may even find that you can actually come up with a good idea or a good phrase to include in one of your main article sections while taking this “break”. Your brain may keep working on the task even when you stop actively working on it, and it's pretty cool when this happens.

You should be able to see what sections are choppy. Look for sections that don’t have a good logical flow. Try to do this all in one sitting or at least all in one day when you can give your article your full focus. Then, work on the problem areas one by one .

Many researchers from non-English speaking countries have been taught to write beautiful, long sentences that are reminiscent of poetry.

These are great oftentimes in the native language and for the native audience of other researchers. However, the problem is that the long, beautiful sentences do not translate well into English.

If translated literally into English, the long sentences often sound fluffy and include too many unnecessary phrases. This makes the actual point of the sentence difficult to determine.

English-speaking researchers, editors, and peer reviewers will unfortunately look at your paper as being too wordy. This is because researchers in English-speaking countries are taught to write concisely.

To avoid this, if you write in your native language, try to use short, active sentences that will be easy to translate. For most languages, this means that your subject and verb should be at the beginning of the sentence and easy to pick out.

Avoid adding in unnecessary phrases. We have an article on some phrases to avoid in scientific writing that you may want to review.

For example, avoid ‘in other words’ and choose ‘thus’ instead. This is a simple example, but the point is that you want to be short and to the point without fluff.

Conciseness is key to a well-written scientific paper in English.

We aren’t saying this because translating and English editing is our business. We say this because we believe that every scholarly article aimed at publication will benefit from editing.

Also, English is the major language of science .

So, if you want your research article to be read internationally, it should be published in an English-language journal and be written in English.

If you cannot write it in English, you need a good translator who will translate it from your native language into English. It should then be edited by a native English speaker who preferably has expertise in your field of study.

You may have noticed a general theme of this article - your paper should show its relevance to your field of study.

If you explain the importance of your study, your paper will be heavily cited. Your colleagues may then acknowledge you as an expert in your field.

Writing is a fluid art that should be adjusted and tweaked to meet the needs of your target audience. We hope these 15 tips help you on your scholarly article-writing journey and help you publish your research in a top journal !

Do you use these methods or different methods when writing your scholarly articles?

We would love to hear your ideas and comments and discuss them in future articles.

Contact us and start a conversation!

Comments or Suggestions?

Complete our Blog Feedback Survey and Receive 10% Off Your First Editing or Translation Order!

About the Authors:

This article was collectively written by a dedicated group of our in-house PhD editors and writers who have decades of scientific publishing and research experience.

Connect With Us

Dissertation Editing and Proofreading Services Discount (New for 2018)

May 3, 2017.

For March through May 2018 ONLY, our professional dissertation editing se...

Thesis Editing and Proofreading Services Discount (New for 2018)

For March through May 2018 ONLY, our thesis editing service is discounted...

Neurology includes Falcon Scientific Editing in Professional Editing Help List

March 14, 2017.

Neurology Journal now includes Falcon Scientific Editing in its Professio...

Useful Links

Academic Editing | Thesis Editing | Editing Certificate | Resources

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

How to Write a ‘How-To’: A Step-by-Step Guide to Our Contest

We walk you through how to brainstorm a topic, interview an expert and write your own original “How to ….”

By Natalie Proulx and Katherine Schulten

“If you want to know how to do something, don’t just search the internet,” advises Malia Wollan , the longtime writer of Tip , a how-to column that ran weekly in The New York Times Magazine for seven years. “Instead, find a person who already knows how and ask them.”

That’s the challenge we are posing to students in “How to … ,” our new informational writing contest for teenagers : Interview an expert about (almost) any skill and then write an engaging and informative essay explaining it to readers.

In this guide, we’ll show you how to do that, with advice from the how-to expert herself, Ms. Wollan. You’ll start by getting familiar with the Tip format. Then you’ll brainstorm a topic for your own piece, find and interview an expert and, finally, put it all together.

When you’re ready, you can submit your completed how-to essay to our contest , which is accepting submissions through Feb. 14.

A step-by-step guide:

1. read some “tip” articles to understand the form., 2. look more closely at one piece., 3. brainstorm your topic., 4. find an expert., 5. conduct the interview., 6. put it all together..

What does a how-to essay look like? There are, of course, many ways to write one. For instance, you may have consulted wikiHow in the past, whether to learn how to make a realistic New Year’s resolution , fold a fitted sheet , reheat rice or do one of the many, many other things the site can teach you.

But since the inspiration for our contest comes from the Tip column in The Times, spending some time examining how it works is the logical first step in constructing your own.

Start by reading any three Tip articles of your choice.

If you don’t have a Times subscription, this guide can help. If you click on any of the 40-plus Tip topics we link here, you can access them for free, as long as you open them directly from this page. (Note to teachers: If your class does have a Times subscription and you are working from the column itself , be aware that some articles may not be appropriate. Please preview before sharing.)

Here are some options to help you choose:

Maybe you’re interested in learning a physical skill, such as how to build a sand castle , skip a stone , do the splits , tackle someone , spot a shooting star , crack a safe or find a four-leaf clover .

Or maybe you would rather up your emotional intelligence by, say, learning how to laugh at yourself , let your mind wander , recover from being ghosted , build an intentional community , be less fearful of the dark or forgive .

Perhaps you want to know how to do something practical, like break in boots , fix a brake light , mend a pair of jeans , use emojis , put out a grease fire , read faster , survive an avalanche , ask for an extension or find a lost hamster .

Or maybe you’d rather choose something offbeat, like how to start a family band , talk to dogs , communicate through facial expressions , make a love potion , build a fort , enjoy snowflakes , wash your hair in space or race pigeons .

After you’ve read three, answer these questions:

What do you notice about the structure, organization and language of a Tip column?

What predictable elements can readers expect to find in every edition?

If you did the activity above, you might have noticed some of these elements:

Tip articles are short: Each column is about 400 words and around four paragraphs long. Our challenge asks you to write something of about the same length.

The topics are usually ultra-specific: The skills described might be physical ( how to skip a stone ) or emotional ( how to forgive ), serious ( how to suture a wound ) or offbeat ( how to befriend an eagle ), but they are always small enough that they can be fully explained within the limited word count.

Each article features a single expert source: You probably noticed that each column begins and ends with a quote from an expert on the topic and that the same expert gives background and advice throughout the piece. For this contest, we are not requiring you to follow that same format, but we are asking you to find and interview an expert to inform your essay. And if you’d like to follow that format, you may.

The advice is practical, but the pieces are engaging to read. Each includes concrete tips for how to accomplish a task, but it’s never just a boring list of steps. The writer also provides context for the skill so that readers understand how and why they might use it in their own lives. And the quotes Ms. Wollan chooses from her interviews are often colorful or full of voice, as you can see in this piece about how to appreciate spiders .

They are written to the reader: The writer addresses the reader as “you,” and often uses the imperative to craft sentences that tell the reader what (or what not) to do.

Now let’s break it down even further. Choose one Tip article to read — either one you already read in Step 1 or a new one — and then respond to the following questions:

Whom does the writer quote in the piece? Why do you think the author chose this person? What makes him or her an expert in this skill? Do you think this person was a good source of information?

Look closely at when the author chooses to quote the expert and when she paraphrases the information that person gave. What is the difference? Why do you think she chose to quote the lines she did? Give some examples from the piece to explain your reasoning.

You may have been taught in school to cite your sources by using footnotes or by putting them in parentheses after you’ve referenced the information. That’s not how journalists do it, yet they still make their sources clear. Where do you see this in the piece you read? What punctuation or wording does the author use to tell us where certain facts and details come from?

Now let’s look at how the author balances explaining how to acquire a skill and showing why it’s needed: Underline or highlight in one color the lines in the piece that tell readers how to accomplish the task, and use another color to highlight lines that give context. What do you notice about the difference in language? What do you notice about the way these pieces of information are woven together throughout?

After reading this, do you feel confident that you could accomplish the task on your own? What tips, if any, did the expert share that surprised you?

When, where and for what purpose might you use this skill in your own life? What lines help readers see how this skill might be relevant to their lives?

What else do you admire about this piece, whether it’s the topic covered, the way it’s written or anything else?

Now that you better understand how to write a how-to, it’s your turn to write one!

First, of course, you must find a topic. For a Times Insider article about how the Tip column is made , Ms. Wollan and her editor, Dean Robinson, describe how they found their ideas:

She often gets suggestions. Many people ask her to write about navigating interpersonal relationships; Ms. Wollan acquiesced in the case of a highly-requested Tip on how to break up with a therapist. She thinks people come to her because “that stuff is hard to navigate and it’s also hard to Google.” Some of the more recognizable scenarios featured in Tip columns come from Ms. Wollan’s own life. She credits being a mother as the inspiration for columns on delivering babies , singing lullabies and apologizing to children . Mr. Robinson occasionally comes across ideas in his life, too. He suggested a piece on how to find a hamster in your house, he said, “because we’ve lost some hamsters.”

Brainstorm as many possible topics as you can for your how-to piece. Here are some ways to start:

Respond to our related Student Opinion forum . We pose 10 questions designed to help you brainstorm about what you’d like to learn to do, and what you already do well. We hope you’ll not only provide your own answers, but also scroll through the answers of others.

Ask for suggestions. What skills have your friends, family and neighbors always wanted to learn? What do they already consider themselves experts on? Keep a running list.

Get inspiration from the Tip column . As you scroll through the column, which headlines stand out to you? Could you take on a similar topic in a different way? Do any of them inspire other ideas for you?

Work with your class to compile as long a list as you can. After you’ve tried the three ideas above, come to class with your list, then share. Your ideas might spark those of others — and when it’s time to find experts, your classmates may have contacts they can share.

Once you’ve come up with as many ideas as you can, choose one for your piece and refine it until it is the right size for a 400-word piece.

These questions can help:

Which of the topics that you listed gets you most excited? Why?

For which do you think you could realistically find an expert to interview? (More on that in the next step.)

Which are already specific enough that you could thoroughly explain them in 400 words or fewer?

Which are big, but could be broken down? For instance, if you chose “learn to cook,” make a list of specific skills within that larger goal. Maybe you’d like to learn how to chop an onion, bake chocolate chip cookies, or build a healthy meal from the noodles in a ramen packet.

Which topics do you think might be most interesting to a general audience? Which feel especially unique, helpful or unexpected?

Maybe you chose your topic because you know someone who is already an expert at that task or skill. But even if you have, read through this step, because it might help you find someone even more suitable or interesting.

Here is how Ms. Wollan says she found experts for her column:

Ms. Wollan finds interview subjects by “just poking around” online and on the phone. Sometimes she has to talk to a few people before reaching the source she will feature in the column. She interviews most of her subjects by phone for about 45 minutes, sometimes longer. “I love talking to people who just maybe don’t care so much about being an expert,” Ms. Wollan said. Some of her favorite interviews have been with children and people in their 80s, who are often “looser and more generous with their advice.”

Who could be an expert on your topic? At minimum, it should be someone who is knowledgeable enough about your subject that your readers will trust his or her advice.

Some choices might be easy. For example, for her column on how to choose a karaoke song , Ms. Wollan interviewed a world karaoke champion; for her piece on how to recommend a book , she interviewed a librarian; and for her article on how to suture a wound , she interviewed a doctor.

Other choices, however, may be less obvious. For a column on how to breathe , Ms. Wollan interviewed a clarinet player; for one on how to slice a pie , she interviewed a restaurant owner; and for one on how to say goodbye , she interviewed a child-care worker who had bid farewell to many children during her career.

Brainstorm as many potential experts for your piece as you can and then choose one as the subject of your piece.

Your expert doesn’t have to be a world champion or the national head of an organization to have expertise. This person can be anyone with specialized knowledge of a field or topic. For example, if you were writing a piece on how to start bird-watching, you could interview someone who works at a local park or zoo, someone from a birding group in your town or a bird-watcher you know personally, such as a neighbor or teacher.

Like Ms. Wollan, you might start by “poking around online” for potential subjects. And you may have to talk to a few people before you decide on the person you want to feature in your piece.

If you are doing this assignment with classmates, now might be a good time to pool resources. Share your topics, and find out who might know someone with expertise in those areas. Remember that you are not allowed to interview your relatives — but you can suggest your woodworker grandma or your skateboarder cousin to someone who is writing about those topics.

When you reach out to people, keep in mind this advice from Corey Kilgannon, a New York Times reporter who has interviewed people for profiles and who was a guest on a Learning Network webinar about profile writing :

Tell the person what your goal is and where you’re coming from — that you’re writing a profile for a school assignment or a contest or a newspaper or whatever. Be straight with the person you’re interviewing. Some people might be a little nervous or shy about how this is going to turn out, or how they’re going to look. So tell them what it’s for, how long it’s going to be, that there will be photos, or whatever you can.

Once you’ve found the expert for your piece, it’s time to conduct your interview.

In “ The Art of Learning to Do Things ,” Ms. Wollan offers excellent advice that everyone participating in our challenge should take to heart:

If you want to know how to do something, don’t just search the internet. Instead, find a person who already knows how and ask them. At first, they’ll give you a hurried, broad-strokes kind of answer, assuming that you’re uninterested in all the procedural details. But of course that’s precisely what you’re after! Ask for a slowed-down, step-by-step guide through the minutiae of the thing. For seven years, I did exactly that — I called a stranger and asked that person to describe how to do a specific task or skill.

That might sound like a straightforward task, but you should come up with some questions — on your own or with your class — before you talk to your expert.

These might include questions like:

If you were to explain how to do this skill or task to someone who had never done it before, what advice would you give?

What are some common errors that those first learning this skill or trying this task often make? How can they be avoided?

What is your background in this skill? How did you get started with it? How did you learn how to do it?

When or why might a person have to use this skill? What are the benefits of knowing it?

You might also return to some of the Tip articles you read at the beginning of this lesson. Read them closely and see if you can guess what questions the writer may have asked to get the specific quotes and information the expert shared in the piece. Which of these questions might be helpful for your own interview?

Remember that interviewing is an art — and Times journalists can offer you advice.

In addition to asking good questions, it’s also your job as a journalist to make the interviewee feel comfortable, to listen carefully, to ask follow-up questions and to clarify that you have accurate information.

We have written our own extensive how-to on interviewing, filled with tips from Times journalists. Steps 3, 4 and 5 in this lesson will be especially helpful. Created for a contest we ran in 2022, the guide can walk you through preparing and practicing for an interview; keeping the conversation going while conducting it; and shaping the material into a useful piece when you’re done.

Finally, it’s time to write your piece. If you are submitting to our how-to writing contest, keep in mind that your essay must be 400 words or fewer.

Remember, too, that we are inviting you to take inspiration from the Tip column, but that you don’t have to copy its form and structure exactly — unless you’d like to. Most important, though, is to find a way to write what you want in a way that sounds and feels like you.

That said, there are a few key elements that are important to include, which can be found in our contest rubric . Below, we share some examples from the Tip column to illustrate these elements.

Introduce your expert source.

The person you interviewed will be the main source of information for your piece. Ask yourself: How will my readers know this person is an expert in the skill or task? What information should I include about this person to make my readers feel that they can trust the person’s knowledge and advice?

Here is how Ms. Wollan introduces her expert in “ How to Skip a Stone ”:

“Throw at a 20-degree angle,” says Lydéric Bocquet, a physics professor at École Normale Supérieure in Paris.

Later, she further explains Mr. Bocquet’s expertise:

Bocquet’s quest to understand how this happens — how a solid object can skim along water without immediately sinking — began more than a decade ago, while he was skipping stones on the Tarn River in southern France with his young son. “He turns to me,” Bocquet says, “and asks, ‘Why does the stone bounce on the water?’” To answer that question satisfactorily, Bocquet and his colleagues built a mechanical stone skipper and analyzed the angle of each toss using high-speed video. They also created a set of mathematical equations to predict the number of skips.

How do you know Bocquet is an expert in skipping stones? Do you, as the reader, trust him as an expert on this topic? Why or why not?

Explain how to do the task or skill.

The heart of your piece is, of course, your explanation. You might start by making a list of steps that your expert source shared and then paring it down to the most essential information.

Ask yourself:

What instructions are crucial to the reader’s understanding of how to accomplish this skill or task?

What did the expert share that I found surprising or may not have thought of?

What details can I leave out, either because they are not very interesting or because they are less important?

What sequence for the steps make the most sense for my readers?

Consider the first paragraph from “ How to Build a Sand Castle ”:

“Use your architect mind,” says Sudarsan Pattnaik, an award-winning sand sculptor from Puri, a seaside city in India. If you’re building from memory, first envision your castle. For Pattnaik, who is 42, that means well-known Hindu or Muslim sites. “I have made so many Taj Mahals,” he says. Build with fine-grained sand already wetted by an outgoing tide. “Dry sand is too, too difficult,” Pattnaik says. Bring tools: hand shovels, buckets with the bottoms cut off and squirt bottles. Tamp wet sand into your bucket molds, setting one layer and then the next, like bricks. Sculpt architectural details from the top of the mound down. Bring reference photographs if you’re aiming for realism.

See if you can identify all the steps to making a sand castle that the writer shares in this paragraph. What do you notice about the order? What, if anything, do you think the writer might have left out, and why do you think she made that choice? What tips did you find most surprising? What do these lines add to the piece?

Notice also the grammatical structure Ms. Wollan uses: “Build with fine-grained sand”; “bring tools”; “tamp wet sand into your bucket molds”; and so on. This is called the imperative mood and is often used when telling others how to do something.

Include at least one quote.

If you are submitting to our contest, you need to include a minimum of one direct quote from the expert. Ask yourself: What quotes from my interview are so interesting, important, surprising, informative or colorful that I need to find a way to fit them in?

Look at “ How to Do the Splits ,” in which Ms. Wollan interviewed Kendrick Young, a professional sumo wrestler:

Start by stretching every day after you get out of the shower (heat increases muscle and ligament flexibility). Wear comfortable, stretchy attire. “Definitely don’t try to do this in jeans,” Young says. Sit with your legs spread as wide as you can. Once you can do that without hunching, begin to lean toward the ground, exhaling as you go. “You don’t want to be bending over a big pocket of air in your lungs,” Young says. It might help to have someone push down on your midback (historically, sumo wrestlers often stood on one another’s backs to force the body to the floor).

Why do you think the writer chose to include these two specific quotes in the piece, while paraphrasing (or writing in her own words) the rest of what Young said? What additional context did the writer provide to help us understand the purpose and relevance of these quotations?

Provide a purpose for reading.

Remember that a how-to essay is not just a list of steps; your readers should also understand how this topic might be relevant to their lives. Ask yourself: Why should a reader care about this skill or task? Where, when or for what reasons might someone want or need to do it?

Consider the last paragraph in “ How to Start a Family Band ”:

To be in a family band, you have to be prepared to spend a lot of time together, actively working on cohesion. Music can act as a kind of binding agent. When they’re not in quarantine, the Haim sisters see, or at least talk to, each other every day. “Instead of camping as kids, or going hiking, it was like, ‘OK, we’re going to practice a few songs,’” Danielle says. “It was definitely my parents’ ploy to spend more time with us.”

What reason does the writer provide for why a reader might want to try this activity? What additional background does she share from the expert, Danielle Haim, to help explain why a family — even one that might not be musical — may want to start a band together?

Submit your final piece.

Once you’ve written and edited your essay, give it a title (“How to…”) and submit it to our contest by Feb. 14. We can’t wait to learn the skills you’ll teach us!

Natalie Proulx joined The Learning Network as a staff editor in 2017 after working as an English language arts teacher and curriculum writer. More about Natalie Proulx

Katherine Schulten has been a Learning Network editor since 2006. Before that, she spent 19 years in New York City public schools as an English teacher, school-newspaper adviser and literacy coach. More about Katherine Schulten

Apple reportedly inviting French retail employees for Vision Pro training

Apple Vision Pro is currently only available in the US, but there have been a lot of rumors recently about the international expansion of the new headset. Now a report from WatchGeneration claims that Apple has been inviting employees from its retail stores in France for Vision Pro training this summer.

Apple to train employees for Vision Pro launch in France

The report is a bit vague, as the website’s sources say that Apple has been calling its French employees to a “Training Product Event” for a new product. Although the training description doesn’t mention Apple Vision Pro, the headset is the only new Apple product yet to be launched in France.

Vision Pro training sessions in France are expected to begin this summer. In the US, Apple began scheduling Vision Pro training for its retail employees in December last year. Training took place in mid-January, about two weeks before the official launch of Vision Pro.

Considering that summer begins in mid-June, this suggests that Apple Vision Pro could be launched in France (and some other European countries) as soon as July. This is in line with a report by analyst Ming-Chi Kuo , who said that Apple would launch Vision Pro in more countries in time for the visionOS 2 beta to reach more developers around the world.

In addition to France, job listings on Apple’s website reveal that Australia and Japan could be the next countries to get Vision Pro . For now, the only confirmation we have about the international expansion of the Vision Pro is a statement from Tim Cook about the launch in China later this year .

In the US, prices for Apple Vision Pro start at $3,499.

• visionOS code suggests that Apple Vision Pro will soon be available in more countries
• Three more Apple Arcade games coming to Apple Vision Pro including spatial Spire Blast
• Apple gives users a new way to browse Vision Pro’s App Store
• Former Oculus head calls Apple Vision Pro an ‘over-engineered devkit’

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Check out 9to5Mac on YouTube for more Apple news:

Filipe Espósito is a Brazilian tech Journalist who started covering Apple news on iHelp BR with some exclusive scoops — including the reveal of the new Apple Watch Series 5 models in titanium and ceramic. He joined 9to5Mac to share even more tech news around the world.

Biden’s Biggest Challenges to Reelection—Immigration, Gaza, and Even the Economy

Age isn’t the only hurdle for him to avoid becoming the 12th incumbent president to fail to win a second term.

President Joe Biden, seen here campaigning in Raleigh, N.C., on Tuesday, March 26, faces significant challenges in his reelection bid, especially on immigration, Gaza, and the economy. Photo by Stephanie Scarbrough/AP Photo

Age isn’t the only hurdle for him to avoid becoming the 12th president to fail to win a second term

President Biden’s reelection campaign faces a heady array of challenges, including the age question (he’s 81) and the likely Republican nominee, former president Donald Trump. What will he have to do to avoid becoming the 2nd consecutive incumbent president (and 12th in history) to lose a bid for a second term?

Tops among the issues he has to tackle: immigration, Gaza, and the economy, all of which have shown up in the results of several early primaries.

With immigration and the war in Gaza, Biden appears to be caught in damned-if-he-does, damned-if-he-doesn’t scenarios, taking hits from both Republicans and many on the more liberal side of his own party. The robust economy is less of an issue for what may be wrong with it—not much, in most experts’ views—than for the fact that many Americans think it’s bad and refuse to give his administration any credit for its actual strength.

An incumbent (or previous) president has failed to win reelection 11 times in history, the last in 2020 when Trump lost to Biden. We asked some Boston University faculty experts in American politics and the presidency, foreign policy, and government affairs to assess how Biden can deal with these three key issues to avoid becoming the 12th.

• Immigration

Trump and his minions are making plenty of hay out of what is, from any perspective, a big mess at our southern border, with thousands of migrants arriving every week from Central America and elsewhere.

Although Republican rhetoric is laced with racism and lies about the criminal character of the migrants, the sheer numbers of arrivals spreading out across the United States makes this a legit issue, and Biden seems to be hardening his approach. Many on the left, on the other hand, think asylum seekers deserve a more sympathetic response.

Thomas Whalen , a College of General Studies associate professor of social sciences, who specializes in 19th- and 20th-century American social and political history, says Biden isn’t the one to blame.

“I think here we see where the paralysis in Congress is having its greatest impact, because presidents can’t do everything under our constitutional order,” says Whalen, who has written several books on sports and society. “We don’t elect kings every four years. Biden is constrained by the rule of law, and Congress has shown a decided inability [or unwillingness] to act on this issue, at least on the Republican side. This is, from their point of view, a winning issue.”

Whalen notes that Republicans in both houses of Congress abandoned a bipartisan deal that was brokered earlier, because politically it would be damaging to their base, or at least cost the support of the base.

“To me this is the problem with American government right now,” Whalen says. “We are living in an ungovernable country, and it’s at a crisis point. He needs congressional action and he’s not gonna get it.”

The president might take extraordinary measures through executive order to close the border, he says, “but then he will be seen as desperate—it will be seen as a pure political move, and he’ll lose a good part of his liberal democratic base. So it’s a lose-lose on Biden’s part.”

The one thing he can do on the issue, Whalen says, is to follow President Harry Truman’s playbook from 1948 and run against a “do-nothing Congress.”

“‘American voters don’t care about foreign policy.’ That old line often gets thrown around at election time,” says Andrew David , a CGS lecturer in social science whose research interests include the US presidency and the history of US foreign policy. “Yet, the ‘uncommitted’ campaign in Michigan’s Democratic primary, which garnered 100,000 votes last month, was primarily driven by Biden’s Gaza policy.”

Gaza, David says, is “the classic foreign policy trap for an American president”: the expectation that American power can and should be used to solve a crisis, with pressure from opposing domestic groups to be more forceful in words and deeds. Some want Biden to support Israel unwaveringly after the October 7 Hamas terrorist offensive. Others, including more liberal Democrats, Arab Americans, and some Jews, want him to use every tool at his disposal to stop what they see as a genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

A successful Biden-led cease-fire could ameliorate some of these concerns, but America lacks the clout in the region it had, going back to the 1970s, David says, and Biden’s efforts could address that, too.

“Better late than never, but Biden’s recent toughening stance against Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu still can go a lot further, given the growing civilian body count in Gaza,” says Whalen.

“The president continues to tiptoe around the issue. Given all the military aid and public support he receives from the US, Netanyahu has no problem thumbing his nose at the Biden Administration. That kind of rank ingratitude needs to stop,” Whalen says. “I understand Biden does not want to alienate Jewish American voters, but in doing so, he’s alienating Arab-American voters, and also a huge swath of young Americans under 30.

“Alienating this new Generation Z, I think in some ways is an even greater threat, not just to Biden in 2024, but for the Democratic Party moving forward,” he says.

The Economy

Recent scholarship has stressed the relative limits on the ability of presidents to influence the economy, David says, “yet voters naturally link the status of the economy to presidential performance. That Biden doesn’t have more support because of this is surprising.”

The economy, by most metrics, is good. Unemployment remains low, a recession seems to have been avoided, and wage gains continue. Hesitation among voters on economic matters is understandable considering high inflation and interest rates. But the overall picture is good, and “it remains Biden’s job to prove the economy is strong,” David says.

Biden was quite impressive during his State of the Union address March 7, touching on key issues where “there’s a host of misinformation floating around about how much more improved the economy is under his presidency,” says Christine Slaughter , a College of Arts & Sciences associate professor of political science.

“In many ways, he set the record straight about the state of the economy, and the positive trends—such as the Black unemployment rate, which is at an all-time low , yet still nearly double the unemployment rate for whites —that are benefiting voters, specifically Black Americans and Latino Americans,” Slaughter says.

“Democrats have to continue to message those gains to voters, and they must use trusted messengers to deliver those messages to non-white voters, who have a slight decline in enthusiasm for supporting the Democratic ticket,” she says. “These messages should look different for young and older voters who are more or less entrenched in Democratic party politics.”

“It’s a bread-and-butter issue,” says Whalen. “People see it at the grocery store, the prices, and they see the prices of other domestic goods, like cars and so forth. And it kind of just eats away at their bottom line.

“But what people and what analysts don’t get right now is that wages are also rising,” he says. “The sting of inflation is slowly being rubbed away for many people in the middle class. So that might go in a positive direction for Biden. But the perception is now that, you know, the economy is still not recovered, not recovered sufficiently.”

Biden “is a horrible messenger, though. He has to get the message out there, but that’s where his age comes in, because he just doesn’t seem to have the energy to kind of do the whistle-stop tour that Truman did in 1948.”

Summing up:

After his victory in 2016, Trump received credit for running as a populist candidate—an advocate for the “little person,” David says. Statistics don’t suggest that was the reason he won, but both parties have positioned themselves as the champion of the average American.

“Biden seems to be taking a real stab at connecting rhetoric with reality,” he says. “The monthly distribution of child tax credit checks early in his administration and his effort to eliminate student debt both encountered some success. He recently became the first president to march with striking union workers. His efforts might help us more definitively say whether voters are as keen on rewarding action as they are to support rhetoric.”

But Slaughter says that to reach Black voters, whose support was key for Biden in 2020, it’s important to emphasize the absolute difference between the two (presumptive) major party candidates.

Ronald Reagan was underestimated too. Going into 1984, he was considered old and doddering too, and guess what happened there? Thomas Whalen

“Republicans have worked to demobilize the Black vote by blocking voting rights legislation . There have been many attempts to erode the protections of the Voting Rights Act, such as gerrymandering Black voters into districts, photo identification requirements, and denying organizations the right to challenge voter suppression legally ,” Slaughter says.

But while there’s a clear difference between the two parties, “Democrats have yet to fulfill many promises made in the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder in 2020,” she says. “There hasn’t been a successful police reform bill or federal oversight of law enforcement officers, and it seems like Democrats have all but retreated from the issue.”

“I think you have to take a lesson from 1984,” Whalen says. “Relatively late in the election cycle, Ronald Reagan was not doing so good. We were coming out of one of the worst recessions in modern memory, and it took a while for the public [to realize], but, you know, come election day, they voted for Reagan.

“It was a complete turnaround,” he says. “The economy makes the biggest difference of all. Inflation is still hanging around, prices are still unusually high, but if they get down a little bit more, like the price of gas, which has been going down overall the last few months, I think Biden will be in pretty good political shape, barring some other catastrophe.

“He’s probably following the Reagan political game plan here, which is basically, ‘the economy is doing well, and we’re gonna run on a prosperity platform.’ Biden was never really overwhelmingly popular in any race. He lost a couple of presidential bids, but in terms of Senate races, he always had long odds against him and he always pulled it off.

“I would not underestimate him,” Whalen says. “Ronald Reagan was underestimated too. Going into 1984, he was considered old and doddering too, and guess what happened there?”

Explore Related Topics:

• International Relations
• Share this story
• 3 Comments Add

Staff Writer

Joel Brown is a staff writer at BU Today and Bostonia magazine. He’s written more than 700 stories for the Boston Globe and has also written for the Boston Herald and the Greenfield Recorder . Profile

Comments & Discussion

Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (EST) and can only accept comments written in English. Statistics or facts must include a citation or a link to the citation.

There are 3 comments on Biden’s Biggest Challenges to Reelection—Immigration, Gaza, and Even the Economy

Biden’s biggest challenges are the results of his policies. He could be 20 years younger and having implemented the same policies, he’d be in the same situation.

I was surprised not to see a mention of Robert F Kennedy, Jr as one of Biden biggest threats. I am not a fan and a lot of people are lining up against him, but splitting the vote has to hurt one of the two candidates.

The DNC is trying hard to prevent RFK, Jr from running. This is not democracy. RFK is collecting signatures to be on the ballot as an independent candidate. Can’t wait to hear the debate between RFK, Biden, and Trump. Let’s have a civilized conversation about the future our this country.

Post a comment. Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest from BU Today

Sex in the dark: a q&a event with sex experts, tips to watch and photograph the april 8 total solar eclipse safely, boston university drops five-day isolation requirement for covid, the weekender: march 28 to 31, bridge collapse creates conversation in bu structural mechanics class, terriers in charge: favor wariboko (cas’24), the bold world of marcus wachira, women’s lacrosse opens home patriot league play, comm ave runway: march edition, 10 memes that describe being a second semester senior, pov: was the francis scott key bridge disaster avoidable, does the united states have the clout to alter netanyahu’s course in gaza, undergraduate research study project explores do-it-yourself extremism, pov: the decision to reinstate mandatory standardized tests for college admissions is a mistake, bu graduate workers launch strike with rally, picket plans, bu professors, undergrads adjust and adapt as grad student strike begins, welcome to boston university, class of 2028, bu falls to bc in hockey east championship, students fasting for ramadan find a home at the gsu.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Clin Diagn Res
• v.8(9); 2014 Sep

How to Write Articles that Get Published

Kirti nath jha.

1 Professor, Department of Ophthalmology, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College & Research Institute, Pondy-Cuddalore Main Road, Pillaiyarkuppam, Pondicherry, India.

Publications are essential for sharing knowledge, and career advancement. Writing a research paper is a challenge. Most graduate programmes in medicine do not offer hands-on training in writing and publishing in scientific journals. Beginners find the art and science of scientific writing a daunting task. ‘How to write a scientific paper?, Is there a sure way to successful publication ?’ are the frequently asked questions. This paper aims to answer these questions and guide a beginner through the process of planning, writing, and correction of manuscripts that attract the readers and satisfies the peer reviewers. A well-structured paper in lucid and correct language that is easy to read and edit, and strictly follows the instruction to the authors from the editors finds favour from the readers and avoids outright rejection. Making right choice of journal is a decision critical to acceptance. Perseverance through the peer review process is the road to successful publication.

Introduction

Writing and publishing scientific papers is the core business of every researcher [ 1 ]. The scientific output medical researchers generate is not only important for society to improve health through advancement of knowledge but also for the individual researcher’s career [ 2 ]. Effective scientific writing, however, is not easy [ 1 ] .

Scientific paper has a required structure and style. However, a research article is not only a technically rigid document, but also a subjective intellectual product. Therefore, it requires good skills in both structuring and phrasing. These skills are acquired through experience, and can also be taught [ 3 ]. ‘Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication’ gives the required technical and structural details of scientific papers [ 4 ]. Also, there is no dearth of literature on scientific writing and publishing. Ironically, most graduate programmes in medicine do not offer hands-on training in writing and publishing in scientific journals. Therefore, most authors learn the art and science of scientific writing the hard way; though there are papers that provide step-by-step guide to writing [ 5 ].

What constitute a good paper- worthy of publication? There are no straight answers. Some define a good paper as a clear, coherent, focussed, well-argued document that uses unambiguous language[ 3 ]. Editors and reviewers appreciate manuscripts that are easy to read and edit [ 4 ]. However, no foolproof rules exist for success in publishing a manuscript. Good scientific content of a paper alone does not guarantee its publication in a good journal [ 5 ].

This article presents a review of the selected articles on writing and publishing in biomedical journals and aims to provide beginners the basics of effective scientific writing, and tips on successful publishing.

Writing a Scientific Paper: Getting started.

When planning a scientific paper, Berk’s memo to the authors in the American Journal of Roentgenology is worth following [ 6 ]. He felt that getting the things right the first time improved the chances of acceptance and avoided revisions. He set out 5 guiding principles for the inexperienced authors : They are : 1. Determine the specific focus of your article, 2. Select the right journal, 3. Decide the type of article, 4. Follow the guidelines for authors published in the selected journal, 5. Revise, revise, and revise. Remember, ‘the most of the important work of composing a manuscript occurs during the study design that is critical for determining the resultant manuscript’s publication [ 7 ]. Therefore, study design and methodology requires careful planning; they form the touchstone on which results and conclusions are tested.

Preparing a Manuscript

The scope of work determines the type of article. The choice of journal depends upon the field a journal covers, area of research, time frame for publication, and the journal’s impact factor- a proxy for relative importance of the journal within its field. ‘Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biomedical publication’ provides the guidelines for preparing manuscripts for any journal [ 4 ]. The text of observational and experimental articles is usually divided into sections with the headings, introduction, methods, results, and discussion, the so-called “IMRAD” structure. Other types of articles have different structure. Therefore, it is necessary to familiarize with and strictly follow the instructions to the authors of the target journal.

To begin with read a paper written in the format you plan to write. Prepare a skeleton of your paper [ 8 ]. Note down the key points in each section. It is neither desirable nor practical to actually write the article sections in sequential order. Introduction and the discussion may wait till at the end. Abstract may be written the last.

Keep the language simple, concise and easy to understand. Follow UK or US English as desired by the journal. Remove all unnecessary words. Use active voice rather than passive. The sentences should begin with the operative word and end with the message. Expand the abbreviations when used for the first time. Check the grammar and spelling. A word processing tool may be helpful. However, many biomedical words do not exist in the vocabulary of the word processing tools. Here, the textbooks or a medical dictionary may be helpful.

Following text sequentially discusses the elements of the individual sections of a scientific paper. Peer-review and reasons for rejection are discussed subsequently.

Title: A good title should attract and inform the readers and be accurate [ 9 ]. It should make it stand out from other literature in the field [ 10 ]. Titles may be phrased in a variety ways. Some examples of descriptive and informative titles are given below:

- Correlation of Tear Fluorescein Clearance and Schirmer test scores with Ocular irritation symptoms (a descriptive title)

- What Are the Biomarkers for Glaucoma?

- Dry eyes: are new ideas drying up?

- Angiopoetin-2 levels are elevated in exudative pleural effusions (informative title)

As a rule, the title should contain all the words that the readers use for searching relevant literature. The authors may, to begin with, consider a number of titles and finally choose the most appropriate. Co-authors and peers may provide useful suggestions. Some journals also ask for short running titles in limited characters to be used at the top or bottom of the journal page. Provide a short running title whenever asked.

Abstract: The abstract reflects the main story of the scientific paper. While reading articles most readers go no beyond the abstracts. Therefore, the abstract should attract the readers to go further. Abstract may be structured or unstructured. Most journals ask for a structured abstracts within given word limit. Structured abstract is divided into:

1. Background: What is known and why is this study needed?

2. Methods: What did you do ?

3. Results: What did you find ?

4. Conclusion: What does it mean ?

Write the abstract in past perfect tense, active voice, and with no citations.

Provide word count, if asked, and key words for indexing, preferably confirming to medical subject heading (MeSH) vocabulary. MeSH vocabulary is available on www.PubMed.com .

Introduction: A crisp introduction is an essential ingredient of a good paper. A good introduction will ‘‘sell’’ the study to editors, reviewers, readers, and sometimes even the media [ 11 ]. It should tell what is known, what is unknown , and also the rationale behind the study. The introduction should start with the background of previous research, and state the aim, the research question, and the study design. Give in the introduction only the strictly pertinent references and do not include the data or conclusions from the work being reported.

Methods: The methods tell how the study was conducted and how the conclusions were arrived at. Methods of an original study have four basic elements; study design, setting and subjects, data collection, statistical methods, and ethical approval. Describe the type of study (prospective/ retrospective/ experimental/observational), the subjects or the study population (human/animal), the sample size and sample size calculation, recruitment of study population, methods of randomization, blinding, inclusion and exclusion criteria, measurement tools, outcome measures, and statistical analysis. The methods provides the readers insight into correctness or otherwise of design. Also, details of methods allow the readers to replicate the intervention or experiment so that they can try and test for themselves the efficacy of an intervention and the validity of conclusions. While describing new surgery or experiment provide sufficient details. When you followed a standard procedures described elsewhere, provide the relevant references.

Results: Results answers the research question without interpretation. Structure the results like the material and methods [ 12 ]. Be objective and use past tense. Remove all the superfluous details that does not form the part of study question, outcome measure or a factor affecting it. Start the results with recruitment process, and a description of demographic characteristic of the population. For controlled trials first describe the experimental group followed by the control group. Give both the percentage and the actual numerical values with decimals e.g. 90%(54/60). Wherever applicable present the values with mean, standard deviation (SD) and 95 % confidence interval. Describe the primary and secondary outcome, and also the unexpected findings. Give p-values with 95 % confidence interval to state the beneficial / adverse effects established by a test of statistical significance. Also provide effect sizes e.g. odds ratio or relative risk with 95 % confidence interval.

Do not over interpret the results. Over interpretetation of result may weaken the impact of conclusion and result in rejection of your paper.

Tables, charts, graphs and figures reduce the text and makes visual impact for easy reading. Number the figures, tables, charts, graphs and the photographs serially. Mention them in the text at appropriate places. Prepare the clinical photographs and diagrams on separate pages in desired format (e.g. JPEG, TIFF, or PNG of desired file size and resolution). Provide as a separate file for the legends for figures, charts, and the clinical photographs. Place the legends after the references. Additional media, like video, in desired file format of given file size, may be submitted for online journals.

Discussion: Discussion interprets the results. Keep it concise. Begin the discussion with brief recapitulation of the main findings (the answer to the research question) without repeating the results. Repeating results in the discussion is a common mistake. Refrain from bringing in new findings. Compare your results with the findings of similar studies by other authors and explain the reasons of variation. Emphasise the new findings. Interpret the unexpected. Underline the implications of your findings. Also, describe the strengths and weaknesses of your study. Finally provide a conclusion - the take home message.

References: References authenticate the scientific facts and statements. Include only the essential references. Cite most accessible reference, and the primary source rather than reviews. Eliminate archaic and irrelevant references, and references for established facts. Check the references for accuracy. Follow the referencing style suggested by the target journal. Most biomedical journals today follow Vancouver style or APA (American Psychological Association) style. There may be a limit for the number of references for a given type of article. Some journal offer online software for checking accuracy of the listed references. Limited number of references can be arranged manually. Especially designed referencing software is useful for maintaining and managing large volume of references. Annotation of references - sentence case or superscript- also varies. Follow the individual journal’s guidelines.

Submission: Revise your paper thoroughly before submission. Read it critically as you would another author’s paper. Ensure you have strictly followed the instruction to authors. Failure to adhere to the instructions may result in summary rejection of your paper. Check and recheck the language and grammar for errors. Create separate files for the cover letter, the abstract, the blinded article file (without author details); figures, charts, tables, and images, legends, and permission from copyright holder for use of published materials, etc. Provide in the cover letter the title, main findings, and their relevance. Ensure correctness of author details (name, surname, degree, etc.), authorship (first author, co-author, guarantor, corresponding author), and their mailing address and the institutional affiliation. Provide all the information desired by the editor including contribution of individual authors. Some journal require details of contributions of each author e.g., conception and design, data collection, statistical analysis, manuscript preparation and revision. Declare the conflict of interest, if any. Online submission shall remain incomplete unless you sequentially upload all the required sections, and the copyright transfer form signed by each author. The copyright transfer form should mention the corresponding author. Preserve the raw data and the final submission for future reference.

Reasons for Rejection: Rejection is an unpleasant situation, but common in scientific publishing. Initial rejection occurs at the editorial level. During the peer review, reviewers assess the quality of paper according to 2 main criteria: contribution to the field and the adequacy of research design [ 13 ]. Deficiency in the study design was the most commonly cited reason for outright manuscript rejection according to a study that queried the editors and reviewers [ 14 ]. A study that studied peer review evaluations of a large number of papers concluded that ‘the main determinant of the recommendation for acceptance or rejection of a given manuscript was the relationship between the experimental design, the results, and the conclusion. Inappropriate experimental design was again strongly associated with rejection [ 15 ].

Failure to adhere to the ‘instruction to the authors’ is another important reason for rejection. Plagiarism in any form is another reason for summary rejection. Available software readily check the submission for plagiarism. Also articles found unsuitable for the journal on account of their content, language, grammar, and format are summarily rejected. There are excellent works that have identified the’ principles to improve the likelihood of publication of a scientific manuscript’ and the reasons why manuscripts are not accepted for publication’ [ 6 , 13 , 16 ]. Lack of what improves the likelihood of acceptance, is the cause of rejection. Common reasons for rejection other than those mentioned above include: poor study design, insufficient problem statement, incomplete, inaccurate, or outdated review of literature, suboptimal reporting of results, getting carried away in the discussion, and poor writing [ 17 ]. Language poses a problem for researches from non-English-speaking countries. Some publishers provide paid language-services for manuscripts.

Peer review, Responding to Reviewers and Resubmission: Peer review is considered the virtue of science communication [ 18 ]. Peer review is an essential tool the journals apply to maintain high quality and standard of the articles published in their journals. The process starts after your paper is past the editorial scrutiny. It supplements the authors work in making it more acceptable to the wider readership. Some journals ask suggestions for potential reviewers, and also those reviewers you will wish not to review your paper. Reviewers may accept, reject or suggest minor/ major revisions. Provide point-wise response to the reviewer’s comments and in time resubmit the revised manuscript incorporating the suggestions for change. Highlight the changes in the revised manuscript. Remember, revision gives no guarantee for acceptance. But failure to respond and resubmit closes the door.

Writing and publishing is integral to research. Scientific manuscript has a required structure and style; the available literature provides adequate guidelines. Online abstracts and full text references, language services, and referencing software have made preparation of manuscript easier. Read the instructions carefully and adhere to them strictly. A beginner has to travel the learning curve of the writing, peer review, and publishing. Originality of content, valid study design, good manuscript- conforming to language, style, and format- are prerequisite for successful publication. Attention to details at every stage and perseverance through the arduous process of research, manuscript preparation, peer review and publication is essential for success.

Literature Search

A PubMed search of the database (1990 to 2004) was conducted. Following key words were used: writing, publishing, biomedical journals, and peer review. Additional sources included publications cited in other articles. Relevant articles were reviewed and included.

Financial or Other Competing Interests

• All Activities
• Sustainable Development Goals
• Conference of the Parties (COP)
• Events and Meetings
• News Portal
• Media Releases
• Latest Publications
• Publication Series
• Fact Sheets
• Photo Galleries
• WMO Community
• The Secretariat
• Our Mandate
• WMO Members
• Liaison Offices
• Gender Equality
• Partnerships
• Resource Mobilization
• History of IMO and WMO
• Finance and Accountability
• World Meteorological Day
• WMO Building

State of the Global Climate 2023

The State of the Global Climate 2023 report shows that records were once again broken, and in some cases smashed, for greenhouse gas levels, surface temperatures, ocean heat and acidification, sea level rise, Antarctic sea ice cover and glacier retreat. 

Heatwaves, floods, droughts, wildfires, and rapidly intensifying tropical cyclones caused misery and mayhem, upending everyday life for millions and inflicting many billions of dollars in economic losses.

The WMO report confirmed that 2023 was the warmest year on record, with the global average near-surface temperature at 1.45 °Celsius (with a margin of uncertainty of ± 0.12 °C) above the pre-industrial baseline. It was the warmest ten-year period on record.  

Extremes Supplement

Press Release

• State of Global Climate report confirms 2023 as hottest year on record by clear margin
• Records broken for ocean heat, sea level rise, Antarctic sea ice loss and glacier retreat
• Extreme weather undermines socio-economic development
• Renewable energy transition provides hope
• Cost of climate inaction is higher than cost of climate action

Digital resources

State of the Global Climate 2023: Storymap

State of the Climate 2023: User Survey

State of the Climate 2023: Key Climate Indicators

Other editions.

State of the Global Climate 2022

State of the Global Climate 2021

State of the Global Climate 2020

What we know about Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse

The Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore collapsed early Tuesday after being hit by a cargo ship, with large parts of the bridge falling into the Patapsco River.

At least eight people fell into the water, members of a construction crew working on the bridge at the time, officials said. Two were rescued, one uninjured and one in serious condition, and two bodies were recovered on Wednesday. The remaining four are presumed dead. The workers are believed to be the only victims in the disaster.

Here’s what we know so far.

Baltimore bridge collapse

How it happened: Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge collapsed after being hit by a cargo ship . The container ship lost power shortly before hitting the bridge, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore (D) said. Video shows the bridge collapse in under 40 seconds.

Victims: Divers have recovered the bodies of two construction workers , officials said. They were fathers, husbands and hard workers . A mayday call from the ship prompted first responders to shut down traffic on the four-lane bridge, saving lives.

Economic impact: The collapse of the bridge severed ocean links to the Port of Baltimore, which provides about 20,000 jobs to the area . See how the collapse will disrupt the supply of cars, coal and other goods .

Rebuilding: The bridge, built in the 1970s , will probably take years and cost hundreds of millions of dollars to rebuild , experts said.

• Baltimore bridge collapse: Crane arrives at crash site to aid cleanup March 29, 2024 Baltimore bridge collapse: Crane arrives at crash site to aid cleanup March 29, 2024
• Officials studied Baltimore bridge risks but didn’t prepare for ship strike March 29, 2024 Officials studied Baltimore bridge risks but didn’t prepare for ship strike March 29, 2024
• Baltimore begins massive and dangerous cleanup after bridge collapse March 28, 2024 Baltimore begins massive and dangerous cleanup after bridge collapse March 28, 2024