Authors Checklist

This checklist is not exhaustive but reflects problems commonly encountered in student work and in manuscripts submitted to refereed journals. It is take from an article published in the journal Addiction:

West R. A checklist for writing up research reports. Addiction. 2000 Dec; 95 (12):1759-61.

Have you . . .

Title

ensured that the title does not promise more than the paper can deliver (e.g. using phrases such as 'The effect of ... on ...' when it should be 'Associations between ... and ...'?
ensured that the title is succinct and avoids redundant phrases (e.g. 'A study of ....')?

Abstract/summary

used the correct structured abstract format?
clearly stated the aims?
stated the sampling strategy, sample size, response rate and main sample characteristics?
described the design?
summarised the measures used?
described the intervention(s) if present and the control if there is one?
summarised the main findings as they relate to the aims?
clearly stated the conclusions, avoiding phrases such as 'The results are discussed' and avoiding just repeating the summary of results?

Introduction

begun with a statement of the main issues being addressed?
made a clear case as to why the study was needed?
made reference to relevant literature? Literature is relevant if it shows why the research questions are important or gives an indication of how the result may turn out. It is essential to search for and give due credit to studies of a similar nature wherever they originate and whatever their conclusions. Selective citation is a common source of bias.
described any necessary background information about the setting for the study?
justified the choice of measures and the sampling strategy?
clearly stated the research questions/hypotheses? This can be done with a bulleted or numbered list.

Methods

clearly stated the total number of participants and the numbers in each group if there are groups?
clearly stated the response rate?
described the sample in terms of age, sex breakdown, social class or other relevant properties?
clearly stated how the sample was obtained in such a way as to be able to judge its representativeness?
clearly listed the measures used, indicating where possible indices of validity and reliability or giving a citation where these can be found?
described the intervention(s) if appropriate and any control conditions if present?
explicitly described any complex or unusual statistical methods?

Results

described the results in terms of the answers to the questions/aims presented at the end of the introduction in the same order as they were presented then?
avoided phrases such as 'The result was not significant'? (Only differences and associations can be statistically significant, not 'results')
always used meaningful labels when referring to results from individual questionnaire items (rather than just the question number)?
avoided repeating material in both tables/graphs and text? The text should just summarise the data presented in tables or graphs.
ensured that all tables and figures have titles using a consistent format and are numbered consecutively?
cited all tables and figures in the text using a phrase such as 'Table 1 shows that ...'?
stated the test statistics (e.g. t value, F value or chi squared value), degrees of freedom and p values? Even for p values greater than .05 it is helpful to show the exact p value to aid any subsequent meta-analysis.
clearly stated the Ns for every mean, correlation, proportion or other analyses? Always give the Ns corresponding to percentages.
avoided using p=0 or p=0.000 or p<.0000 (despite these being given in SPSS printouts)? Use p<.001 or p<.0001 instead.

Discussion

begun the discussion with a summary of the main findings?
related the findings to previous research in terms of whether they support or fail to support the conclusions of that research?
explained how the findings reflect on theory, practice or policy formulation?
examined the limitations of the study, addressing issues such as sample size, sample representativeness, measurement error, measurement bias, whether any intervention was successfully implemented, whether there was contamination between different intervention conditions and ability to generalise from the findings?
attempted to explain apparently anomalous findings?
avoided reporting results in the discussion section that have not been mentioned in the results section?
finished with a paragraph summarising the main conclusions?

References

ensured that your citations and references follow a consistent format, e.g. 'Smith, Jones & Pike, 1998' and follow the journal's guidance to authors
ensured that your references are complete and match the citations in the paper?
ensured that all non-English titles are accompanied by an English translation?
avoided citing unpublished work, especially work reporting substantive findings?
ensured that the references are in the required order?

General

included an acknowledgements section stating the source of funding and thanking relevant people for their assistance?
indicated any conflicts of interest?
ensured that your formatting is consistent and appropriate (e.g. single blank lines between paragraphs, no indentations at the start of paragraphs, no multiple blank lines)?
ensured that tables and figures are always cited in the text and all have numbers and titles?
always used the past tense when describing other people's findings, and your own methods and results?
avoided colloquial expressions that would be confusing to an international readership?
used arabic numerals (e.g. '12', '34') except for numbers below 10 and those beginning a sentence, in which cases you spell the numbers out (e.g. 'three')?
ensured that all abbreviations are spelled out in full the first time they are used?
avoided using shortenings such as "don't" and "it's"?
ensured that all the authors have read through the manuscript carefully to check it over?