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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“Authors often face several difficulties when preparing a research protocol or writing a research article.[15]”
From ChatGPT in academic writing: Maximizing its benefits and minimizing the risks (2023) · cites this paper as [15]
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
Wagner, H. R., Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1968) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2575405 · Cited by 46,525
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998) · Cited by 2,411
Out of Sight, Out of Sync: Understanding Conflict in Distributed Teams
Hinds, P. J., & Bailey, D. E. (2003) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.14.6.615.24872 · Cited by 974
Butler, C., Rollnick, S., Pill, R., Rapport, F., & Stott, N. C. H. (1998) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.317.7159.637 · Cited by 750
A review of writing to learn in science: Implications for practice and research
Rivard, L. P. (1994) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.3660310910 · Cited by 369
The Science of Scientific Writing
Gopen, G. D., & Swan, J. A. (1990) · American Scientist · Cited by 327
BARRIERS TO FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION FOLLOWING PRESENTATION OF ABSTRACTS AT ANNUAL ORTHOPAEDIC MEETINGS
Sprague, S., Bhandari, M., Devereaux, P. J., Swiontkowski, M. F., Tornetta, P., COOK, D. J., Dirschl, D. R., Schemitsch, E. H., & Guyatt, G. H. (2003) · Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery · doi:10.2106/00004623-200301000-00024 · Cited by 286
The reading–science learning–writing connection: Breakthroughs, barriers, and promises
Holliday, W., Yore, L., & Alvermann, D. (1994) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.3660310905 · Cited by 246
Writing to learn mathematics and science
Connolly, P. H., & Vilardi, T. (1989) · Teachers College, Columbia University eBooks · Cited by 204
Scientists' views of science, models of writing, and science writing practices
Yore, L. D., Hand, B. M., & Florence, M. K. (2004) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.20008 · Cited by 167
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Witt, 1995, J Park Recreation Admin, 13, 1
- Grzybowski, 2003, Fam Med, 35, 195
- Galligan, 2003, Queensl J Educ Res, 19, 28
- Weng, 2005, AMIA Annu Symp Proc, 804-, 808
- Gopen, 1990, Am Sci, 78, 550
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Writing-to-Learn in Undergraduate Science Education: A Community-Based, Conceptually Driven Approach
Reynolds, J., Thaiss, C. J., Katkin, W., & Thompson, R. J. (2012) · CBE—Life Sciences Education · doi:10.1187/cbe.11-08-0064 · Cited by 244
Byars‐Winston, A. M., Gutierrez, B., Topp, S., & Carnes, M. L. (2011) · CBE—Life Sciences Education · doi:10.1187/cbe.10-12-0145 · Cited by 137
Worni, M., Guller, U., Shah, A., Gandhi, M., Shah, J., Rajgor, D., Pietrobon, R., Jacobs, D. O., & Østbye, T. (2012) · Obesity Surgery · doi:10.1007/s11695-011-0575-y · Cited by 104
Self-citationSoh, C. R., Pietrobon, R. S., Freiberger, J. J., Chew, S. T. H., Rajgor, D. D., Gandhi, M., Shah, J. Y., & Moon, R. E. (2012) · Intensive Care Medicine · doi:10.1007/s00134-012-2558-4 · Cited by 84
Self-citationWhat Leads Indians to Participate in Clinical Trials? A Meta-Analysis of Qualitative Studies
Shah, J. Y., Phadtare, A., Rajgor, D. D., Vaghasia, M., Pradhan, S. S., Zelko, H., & Pietrobon, R. S. (2010) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010730 · Cited by 85
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Shah, J., Shah, A., & Pietrobon, R.
- Affiliations
- National University of Singapore (SG)
- Duke University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Pietrobon, Ricardo
- Venue
- Academic Medicine
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2009-04
- Volume
- 84
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 511-516
- ISSN
- 1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
- 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
- green
- europepmc.org
- 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
