CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 149Academic Writing and PublishingDoctoral Education Challenges and SolutionsMentoring and Academic Development

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Scientific Writing of Novice Researchers: What Difficulties and Encouragements Do They Encounter?

Open access
Shah, Jatin, Shah, Anand, Pietrobon, Ricardo·2009·Academic Medicine
DOI 10.1097/acm.0b013e31819a8c3cPMC PMC6035752
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

PURPOSE: Writing scientific articles is a daunting task for novice researchers. In this qualitative study carried out in 2007, the authors evaluated the experiences of a group of novice researchers engaged in the writing process, to elucidate the main difficulties and sources of encouragement they encountered. METHOD: Sixteen novice researchers were interviewed. Most were women (10), and most were enrolled in programs of medicine (9), followed by nursing (4) and physical therapy (3). These were drawn via convenience sampling from a randomized control trial in which 48 of them were equally assigned to either an online or a face-to-face course of instruction. On completion, interviews were conducted in focus groups of four students each. The interviews were transcribed and read independently by two of the authors, who then encoded the material based on the principles of grounded theory. Initial categories were converted to major emerging themes, which were validated when participants were asked to review the findings. Triangulation of results was carried out by discussing the emerging themes in an online forum with five specialists in college writing education. RESULTS: Classifying the diverse responses of participants led to the emergence of four major themes: cognitive burden, group support and mentoring, difficulty in distinguishing between content and structure, and backward design of manuscripts. CONCLUSIONS: The themes produced by this study provide some insight into the challenges faced by novice researchers in their early attempts at scientific writing. Remedies that address these challenges are needed to substantially improve scientific writing instruction.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/acm.0b013e31819a8c3c

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 22 references

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Witt, 1995, J Park Recreation Admin, 13, 1
  2. Grzybowski, 2003, Fam Med, 35, 195
  3. Galligan, 2003, Queensl J Educ Res, 19, 28
  4. Weng, 2005, AMIA Annu Symp Proc, 804-, 808
  5. Gopen, 1990, Am Sci, 78, 550

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Shah, J., Shah, A., & Pietrobon, R.
Affiliations
  • National University of Singapore (SG)
  • Duke University (US)
Corresponding author
Pietrobon, Ricardo
ORCID
Venue
Academic Medicine
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2009-04
Volume
84
Issue
4
Pages
511-516
ISSN
1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/acm.0b013e31819a8c3c
PMC
PMC6035752
OpenAlex
W2073165210
Cited by
149
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 12
FWCI
81.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Academic Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • National University of Singapore (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR024128)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Writing and Publishing
  • Social Sciences › Education › Doctoral Education Challenges and Solutions
  • Social Sciences › Education › Mentoring and Academic Development
Keywords
scientific writing, novice researchers, writing difficulties, writing instruction, cognitive burden, peer support, mentoring, manuscript structure, backward design, medical students, nursing students, physiotherapy students, women scientists
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Male, Mentors, North Carolina, Professional Competence, Research, Sampling Studies, Students, Health Occupations, Writing, Focus Groups

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review