1. Introduction 1.1 The pathway to publishing 1.2 Think before you write approach 1.2.1 Develop a framing document 1.2.2 Focus on the high level outline (HLO) 1.

2.3 Use the ''most common errors'' 1.2.4 Understand authorship and mentoring responsibilities 1.2.5 Structure the writing and feedback process 1.3 The scientific writing style 1.4 Converting preliminary work into manuscripts 1.

4.1 Converting reports into manuscripts 1.4.2 Converting posters and verbal presentations into manuscripts 1.5 The process of peer review 2. Most common errors A. General research and writing practices A1. Insufficient knowledge of the literature A2.

Not referencing statements A3. Weak citations A3a. Citing a secondary source A3b. Presenting conclusions rather than data from references A3c. Arguing from authority A4. Endnotes not in standard style A4a. Varying endnote notation A5. Not using standard draft manuscript form A6.

Repeating information A7. Labelling a scientific document as ''final'' A8. Characterizing an observation as ''the first'' A9. Errors in reasoning A9a. Casual assertion of causality A9b. Assuming association is causality A9c. Assuming reported behavior reflects actual behavior A9d. Confusing imperfect recall with recall bias A9e.

Confusing absence of recognition with absence A9f. Asserting seasonality with a single year of data A9g. Drawing conclusions using confirmation bias A10. Constructing a multivariate model using only statistical criteria A11. Plagiarism B. Content of quantitative papers B1. Improper focus or format of title and abstract B2. Confusing the role of Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion B3.

Not writing the Methods section in chronological order B4. Not emphasizing steps taken to protect human subjects B5. Listing interpretations, but not defending one in the Discussion B6. Not fully explaining limitations B7. Writing generic recommendations B8. Presenting new data in the Discussion B9. Reporting the number of enrolled subjects in the Methods B10. Specifying the contents of a questionnaire B11.

Naïve theories of change B11a. Recommending a massive increase in funding B11b. Ignoring incentives and barriers B11c. Assuming weak states can implement B12. An insufficiently focused Introduction B13. Failure to clarify key sample size assumptions B14. A high level outline that is not high level B15. Specifying software used for routine data analysis B16.

Presenting rationale in the last sentence of the Introduction C. Mechanics of writing C1. Using non-standard abbreviations C2. Using non-standard spaces C3. Improper spelling C4. Capitalization problems C4a. USING ALL CAPITAL LETTERS C4b. Capitalizing non-proper nouns C5.

Failure to spell out an isolated numeral < 10 C6. Starting a sentence with a numeral C7. Not indenting paragraphs C8. Not aligning text to the left C9. Problems with parentheses C10. Not recognizing when an abbreviation has become a name C11. Misplaced commas in large numbers C12. Varying fonts within the narrative C13.

Using bulleted lists rather than sentences C14. Uninformative document names D. Grammatical structures and stylistic strategies D1. Using present rather than past tense D2. Failure to use definite and indefinite articles D3. Excessive use of passive voice D4. Improper use of "we" D5. Writing from a psychological perspective D6.

Using excessive sub-headings in the discussion section D7. Misplaced modifiers D8. Using nouns with awkward syntax in place of verbs D9. Using different terms for the same object or the same idea E. Achieving clarity and conciseness E1. Labelling rather than explaining E2. Using weak opening phrases for sentences E3. Using adjectives and qualifiers E4.

Overusing studies or authors as sentence subjects E5. Using non-descriptive numeric or alphabetical labels E6. Using respectively E7. Using the word etcetera E8. Using foreign words E9. Using local words, expressions or monetary figures E10. Using the term ''developing country'' E11. Using the term ''socio-economic status'' as a synonym for wealth E12.

Using a technical term in its non-technical sense E12a. Using the term ''random'' in its non-technical sense E12b. Using the term ''reliable'' in its non-technical sense E12c. Using the term ''significant'' in its non-technical sense E12d. Using the term ''valid'' in its non-technical sense E12e. Using the term ''incidence'' incorrectly E12f. Using the term ''correlated'' incorrectly E13. Using the verb ''documented'' E14.

Framing an argument in terms of need E15. Using the term ''illiterate'' as a synonym for ''no formal education'' E16. Using the word ''challenging'' as a synonym for ''difficult'' E17. Describing a laboratory test result as positive E18. Using increase or decrease in the absence of a time trend E19. Describing a test as a gold standard F. Recording scientific data F1. Using statistics in place of the study question to frame results F1a.

Framing narrative results around p-values F2. Not presenting the core data F3. Using too many decimal places F4. Using too few decimal places F5. Using incomplete headings for tables and figures F6. Imbalance between table and narrative presentation of the results F7. Pointing too explicitly to tables and figures F8. Using inappropriate figures F9.

Using the wrong symbol to designate degree F10. Using non-standard footnote symbols in tables F11. Comparing to a varying baseline F12. Generic data tables that lack a clear message F13. Table layout that impairs comparisons* F14. Maps with irrelevant details F15. Numbering figures or tables out of sequence F16. Listing results in a paragraph that are more clear in a table F17.

Using less informative denominators in a table F18. p-value in a baseline table of a randomized controlled trial F19. Emailing draft manuscripts with figures that are not compressed G. Approaching publication G1. Failure to respond to reviewers'' comments G2. Incomplete response to reviews G3. Invalid authorship line G4. Missing acknowledgement section G5.

Choosing an inappropriate journal G6. Not following a specific journal''s details of style G7. Not using a checklist to review your paper before submission G8. Exceeding the journal word limit G9. Asking your senior author to recommend reviewers G10. Responding to journal reviewers using the first person singular G11. Retaining comments in subsequent drafts G12. Not finding a description of the error code G13.

Requesting an unprofessionally short turnaround time G14. Sending blank forms for co-authors to complete G15. Not providing co-authors a copy of the submitted manuscript G16. Not keeping co-authors informed of journal discussions G17. Re-using an email thread when circulating a revised manuscript G18. Not proofreading references prior to submission G19. Not including text of the manuscript changes in response to reviewers G20. Not including readability statistics H.

Slide and poster presentations H1. Bullets on the wall H2. Chart junk H3. Copying a manuscript figure instead of developing a custom figure H4. Photos with an unnatural aspect ratio H5. Too many photographs on a single slide H6. Field workers as the dominant subject of photographs H7. Using bullets without hanging indents H8.

Using a pie chart H9. Using vertical bars when horizontal bars would communicate better H10. Including a final "Thank you" slide H11. Using sentences for bullet points H12. Too much space between bullets H13. Failure to separate ideas in a multi-lined title H14. Using 3 dimensional chart features as decorations Appendix 1: Flowchart for reviewing scientific documents Appendix 2: Concept note outline Appendix 3: Critical questions for protocol development Appendix 4: Framing document Appendix 5: Conference/scientific meeting abstracts Appendix 6: Quantitative manuscript high level outline (HLO) Appendix 7: Example of quantitative manuscript HLO <.