Skip to main content

The Structure of a Neurosurgical Manuscript

  • Conference paper
Research and Publishing in Neurosurgery

Part of the book series: Acta Neurochirurgica Supplements ((NEUROCHIRURGICA,volume 83))

  • 314 Accesses

Summary

Preparing publishable manuscripts is an important aspect of professional life in research or clinical neurosurgery, especially for those in academic circles. Scientific writing skills can be developed through a long process of training and experience, starting with the residency program. The first step in developing a manuscript is to focus on a subject or problem that might be of significant interest to colleagues in the field. Next, the prospective writer must do a detailed survey of the relevant literature, the results of which will help him or her decide whether to actually write about the topic. Since the primary goal is to get the manuscript published, the writer should bear a specific journal in mind and write in accordance with the guidelines of that publication. He or she must also consider general ethics and scientific rules during the writing process.

Learning how to assess and use scientific sources, how to relate the collected information to the manuscript, and how to write in good scientific form are all important aspects of neurosurgical training.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ad Hoc Working Group for Critical Appraisal of the Medical Literature (1987) A proposal for more informative abstracts of clinical articles. Ann Int Med 106: 598–604.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Altman DG, Doré CJ (1990) Randomisation and baseline comparisons in clinical trials. Lancet 335: 149–153.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Apuzzo MLJ, Hodge CJ (2000) The metamorphosis of communication, the knowledge revolution, and the maintenance of a contemporary perspective during the 21st century. Neurosurgery 46(1): 7–15.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, Olkin I, Pitkin R, Rennie D, Schulz KF, Simel D, Stroup DF (1996) Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT Statement. JAMA 276(8): 637–639.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bhopal R, Rankin J, McColl E, Thomas L, Kaner E, Stacy R, Pearson P, Vernon B, Rodgers H (1997) The vexed question of authorship: views of researchers in a British medical faculty. BMJ314: 1009.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Billing JS (1881) An address on our medical journal. Br Med J 2: 262–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Durack DT (1978) The weight of medical knowledge. N Eng J Med 298: 773–775.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Eastwood S, Derish PA, Berger MS (2000) Biomedical publication for neurosurgery residents: a program and guide. Neurosurgery 47(3): 739–749.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Freiman JA, Chalmers TC, Smith H Jr, Kuebler RR (1978) The importance of beta, the type II error, and sample size in the design and interpretation of the randomized controlled trial: survey of 71 ‘negative’ trials. N Eng J Med 299: 690–694.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Friesinger GC (1986) Who should be an author? J Am Coll Cardiol 8: 1240–1242.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Fye WB (1990) Medical authorship: traditions, trends, and tribulations. Ann Int Med 113(4): 317–325.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Haynes RB, Mulrow CD, Huth EJ, Altman DG, Gardner MJ (1990) More informative abstracts revisited. Ann Intern Med 113:69–76.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Hoen WP, Walvoort HC, Overbeke AJ (1996) What are the factors determining authorship and the order of the authors’ names? JAMA 280(3): 217–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Holmes LS, Grayson TH (1999) Neurosurgery online and the internet: prospects for the next decade. Neurosurgery 44(1): 9–11.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (1985) Guidelines on authorship BMJ 291: 721.

    Google Scholar 

  16. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (1997) Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. Ann Int Med 126(1): 36–45.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Moher D, Dulberg CS, Wells GA (1994) Statistical power, sample size, and their reporting in randomized controlled trials. JAMA 272: 122–124.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Pareras LG, Martin-Rodriguez JG (1996) Neurosurgery and the internet: a critical analysis and a review of available resources. Neurosurgery 39(1): 216–233.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Peto R, Pike MC, Armitage P, Breslow NE, Cox DR, Howard SV, Mantel N, McPherson K, Peto J, Smith PG (1976) Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. I. introduction and design. Br J Cancer 34: 585–612.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Peto R, Pike MC, Armitage P, Breslow NE, Cox DR, Howard SV, Mantel N, McPherson K, Peto J, Smith PG (1977) Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. II. analysis and examples. Br J Cancer 35: 1–38.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Pocock SJ, Hughes MD, Lee RJ (1987) Statistical problems in the reporting of clinical trials. A survey of three medical journals. N Eng J Med 317(7): 426–432.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. The Asilomar Working Group on Recommendations for Reporting of Clinical Trials in the Biochemical Literature (1996) Checklist of information for inclusion in reports of clinical trials. Ann Intern Med 124: 741–743.

    Google Scholar 

  23. The Standards of Reporting Trials Group (1994) A proposal for structured reporting of randomized controlled trials. JAMA 272(24): 1926–1931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Wilkins RH (1981) Preparation of a neurosurgical manuscript, with emphasis on library research. Clin Neurosurg 28: 173–192.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Working Group on Recommendations for Reporting of Clinical Trials in the Biomedical Literature (1994) Call for comments on a proposal to improve reporting of clinical trials in the biomedical literature. Ann Int Med 121(11): 894–895.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Springer-Verlag/Wien

About this paper

Cite this paper

Altinörs, N. (2002). The Structure of a Neurosurgical Manuscript. In: Kanpolat, Y. (eds) Research and Publishing in Neurosurgery. Acta Neurochirurgica Supplements, vol 83. Springer, Vienna. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-6743-4_19

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-6743-4_19

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Vienna

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-7091-7399-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-7091-6743-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics