HOW TO SET UP , CONDUCT AND REPORT A SCIENTIFIC STUDY
Original Articles
Table 2 . Example how results should be presented : Tensile bond strength of ceramics contaminated with saliva after different cleaning procedures .
Ceramic 1 Ceramic 2
Control 55.9 ± 9.2 ab1 52.1 ± 10.9 a1
After contamination cleaned with
Water spray H 3
PO 4 gel
21 ± 13.6 c1 15.8 ± 16.1 c1
40.6 ± 10.7 b1 26.7 ± 11.8 c2 polishing paste 29.7 ± 15.2 c1 21.9 ± 14.2 c1
Cleaner 54.2 ± 8.8 ab1 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
Table 3 . Comments of reviewers , actions taken by authors and comments of authors for the reviewers .
# 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 recommendations for improvement . Therefore the recommendation is that the authors compile all comments of the 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 .
100 Stoma Edu J . 2017 ; 4 ( 2 ): 90-101 http :// www . stomaeduj . com