Table 2. Example how results should be presented: Tensile bond strength of ceramics contaminated with saliva after
different cleaning procedures.
Ceramic 1
Ceramic 2
References
1.
2.
After contamination cleaned with
Control
Water spray H 3 PO 4 gel polishing paste Cleaner
55.9±9.2 ab1 21±13.6 c1
40.6±10.7 b1 29.7±15.2 c1
54.2±8.8 ab1
a1
c1
c2
c1
52.1±10.9 15.8±16.1 26.7±11.8 21.9±14.2
46.3±7.9 a1
ANOVA, Tukey post hoc test p<0.01. superscript letters show same statistical groups in rows,
superscript numbers show same statistical groups in columns
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Table 3. Comments of reviewers, actions taken by authors and comments of authors for the reviewers.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Biedermann M. Projekte managen. ATW Verlag, Buchs SG,
Switzerland; 2009.
Roulet J-F, Viohl J. Der Weg zum Doktorhut. Quintessenz
Berlin 2. Auflage; 2006.
Roulet JF. Why Peer Review? Stoma Edu J. 2014;1(1):6.
Roulet JF. Open Access Publishing. Stoma Edu J.
2016;3(2):122.
Budapest Open Access Initiative 2003. http://www.
budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read
van Meerbeek B, Roulet JF. Open-access Journals - A
Scientific Thriller. J Adhes Dent. 2013;15(6):503-504.
Bonannon J. Who’s afraid of peer review? Science.
2013;342(6154):60-65.
Bennett KJ, Sackett DL, Haynes RB, Neufeld VR, Tugwell
P, Roberts R. A controlled trial of teaching critical
appraisal of clinical literature to medical students. JAMA.
1987;257(18):2451-2454.
Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richasdson
WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ.
1996;312(7023):71-72.
BMJ. How to read a paper. http://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/
resources-readers/publications/how-read-paper
Greenhalgh T. Assessing the methodological quality of
published papers. BMJ 1997;315(7103):305-308. Review.
Roulet JF, Friedmann A. Evidence based – eine Medallie mit 2
Seiten. Prophylaxe Impuls 2015;20:115.
Latyon D. A critical review of search strategies used in recent
systematic reviews published in selected prosthodontic
and implant-related journals: Are systematic reviews really
systematic? Int J Prosthodont. 2017;30(1):13-21.
14. Taylor BN, Thompson A. The international system of units (SI).
NIST Special Publication 330, 2008 Edition National Institute
of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899.
http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP330/sp330.pdf
15. World Medical Association. WMA declaration of Helsinki
– Ethical principles for medical research involving human
subjects (1964, last update 2013). https://www.wma.net/
policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-
for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/
16. Food and Drug Administration. Code of Federal Regulations.
21 CFR Parts 210 & 211. GMP Publications 2017. http://www.
gmppublications.com/210211DrugGMPs.htm
17. Matthews DE, Farewell V. Using and understanding medical
statistics. Karger, Basel, Switzerland; 1985.
18. Remington RD, Schork MA. Statistics with applications to the
biological and health sciences. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs
NJ, USA; 1970.
19. Neter J, Wassermann W. Applied linear statistical models. R.D.
Irwin, Homewood IL, USA; 1974
20. Roulet JF. Good ideas have many fathers. J Adhes Dent.
2005;7(3):179.
21. Layton DM, Clarke M. Accuracy of medical subject heading
indexing of dental survival analyses. Int J Prosthodont.
2014;27(3):236-244.
22. Layton DM, Clarke M. Will your article be found? Authors
choose a confusing variety of words to describe dental
survival analyses. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26(1):115-122.
23. Layton DM, Clarke M. Quality of reporting of dental survival
analyses. J Oral Rehabil. 2014;41(12):928-940.
Jean-François ROULET
DDS, PhD, Dr hc, Prof hc, Professor Chair
Department of Restorative Dental Sciences
College of Dentistry, University of Florida
Gainesville, FL, USA
CV
# of samples produced (e.g. 3 materials x 2 shades
and 3 treatments = 3x2x3= 18 cells; if the author
reports that 200 samples were made, then 200/18
= 11,11 ergo something is wrong, since n can be 11
or 12 only). If the resulting n is not a single number
then something is wrong and the paper in the best
case goes back to the authors.
Many papers get rejected outright, very few are
accepted without modifications/revisions. This
means they are sent back to the authors with
comments and requests for modifications. This
causes frustration at first glance and the authors
may get emotional, since they had tried to do the
best. But remember the objective of the reviewers
is to improve the paper, therefore authors should
not object to the reviewer’s comments unless really
justified and return the manuscript with minimal
revisions only. I have personally experienced
many cases where the revised paper was sent the
second time to the reviewers and came back with
the recommendation “reject” and the comment
that authors did not follow the recommenda tions
for improvement. Therefore the recommendation
is that the authors compile all comments of the
100
HOW TO SET UP, CONDUCT AND REPORT A SCIENTIFIC STUDY
reviewers into a table with one line per comment.
Then they should add two more columns. In the
first they should address the comments and let
the reviewer know what they did or give reasons
why they did NOT do any changes. In the other
column the changes can be displayed (Tab. 3).
This approach may further speed up the review
process, since having very good explanations
about the changes the editor may decide based
on such a table rather than send it for the second
time to the reviewers.
5. Conclusions
• research is exciting
• hard work is often boring
• writing follows standard rules -> boring
• with precision, know how, and the right attitude
there is a very high chance for success
Acknowledgments
The author reports no conflict of interest and there
was no external source of funding for the present
study.
Stoma Edu J. 2017;4(2): 90-101
http://www.stomaeduj.com
Jean-François Roulet, DDS, Dr med dent, PhD, is the former chair and current professor of the Department
of Restorative Dental Sciences at the University of Florida. Professor Roulet is author/coauthor of more than
180 papers, edited/contributed to 27 textbooks and mentored more than 150 theses. He is a renowned
international lecturer with over 800 appearances to date. Dr. Roulet is a member of many professional
organizations, has won numerous awards, and holds four patents. He is editor of Prophylaxe Impuls and
Stomatology Edu Journal. His areas of interest include minimally invasive dentistry, dental materials (ie,
composites and ceramics), adhesive dentistry, esthetic dentistry, and application concepts in preventive
dentistry.
HOW TO SET UP, CONDUCT AND REPORT A SCIENTIFIC STUDY
Questions
There are many reasons why people do research. What reason should not exist:
qa. Obtain a title;
qb. Obtain/maintain a position;
qc. Obtain grant money;
qd. “L’art pour l’art”.
The “Material and Methods” section contains:
qa. Explanations why the materials were used;
qb. Explanations why the used method was selected;
qc. Reasons for the outcome;
qd. Tables and figures.
What should a mentor not do?
qa. Provide guidelines;
qb. Provide instructions for use;
qc. Provide templates;
qd. Do the work.
What part is not in the structure of a scientific paper:
qa. Introduction;
qb. Material and methods;
qc. Results;
qd. Acknowledgements.
Stomatology Edu Journal
101