Guidelines on manuscript format, structure, and style: avoiding editorial holdups in the publication process

Keeping to the requirements for manuscript format, structure, and style speeds up the submission-through-publication process and makes life easier for everyone involved, from the authors themselves, through the editors and reviewers, to the readers. An interested party is far more likely to read and cite a paper that is well formatted and structured, than one that is not. Thus, editors and reviewers will strive to help an author in ensuring that a manuscript is well formatted and structured and that the presentation of material and writing style makes the paper easy to access and understand by the interested reader.

As Hunter (2013) writes, “editors are simple souls: they have to survive a heavy workload.” Hunter (2013) adds that the Editor-in-Chief

“is the pivotal link between the author and expert assessor: they will at all times attempt to ensure that fair play is maintained. To encourage such behavior, authors should in every way possible provide the Editor-in-Chief with exactly what is required of them (always try to humor an editor).”

I would like to add that providing exactly what is required simply speeds everything up and greatly reduces workloads. A very poorly formatted, structured, and/or written submission will be sent back to the author for upgrade before even being sent out to review (Fig. 1). Then, when the handling (associate) editor recommends the paper for acceptance, acceptance will be delayed if the Editor-in-Chief finds that format, structure, and/or writing issues remain. The final edit needs to be fitted in around teaching duties, student supervision, fieldwork, vacations, and taking the children to the swimming pool, so a heavy edit may take up to 4 weeks to complete. This does two things. First, it delays publication. Second, it holds up everyone in the queue behind the problematic submission. Thus, checking that exactly what is required has been applied before submitting a manuscript—and then at every step of the process (Fig. 1)—helps everyone, from the author, through the editors, to your fellow authors.

Fig. 1

Flow chart of the manuscript (ms) processing steps. Issues reviewed here slow down all steps of the publication process. Blue and green boxes indicate items in our workflow, and yellow and red boxes indicate steps where the issues raised here can contribute to rejection of manuscripts, add extra steps, or slow down the process

Between 2017 and 2022, around 350 papers came across my desk for the final edit before being passed on for proof setting. I quickly realized that a pattern was emerging. Going back through my emails recommending acceptance subject to application of final edits, I found 921 common errors that could be placed into one of 21 categories (Table 1; Fig. 2). These in turn could be collated in four groups: scientific content, format, structure, and grammar. Note that these issues can slow down any step in the workflow and even contribute to rejection of a manuscript (Fig. 1). Thus, attending to these issues before submission and then during revision speeds up the process and saves everyone time. Thus, the solution is

ask yourself (at any step in the process) if the submission is proper, correct and in good order: are you sure that you have none of the issues listed in Table 1?

Table 1 Common issues causing publication delay at final edit. Percentage is in terms of the total number of manuscripts analyzed (= 346), and AE is Associate Editor, i.e., the editor that handles the manuscript through the review phase

Fig. 2

Frequency of the most common issues that held up publication of a paper in Bulletin of Volcanology at the final check by the Editor-in-Chief (Fig. 1). Period considered is June 2017 to September 2022, which involves a review of final edits for around 350 papers. Horizontal red lines give the limits at which each error category surpasses 10, 20, and 50% of the cases considered

I will not go into grammar issues here, because this is a difficult and delicate issue, especially for a writer who is not a native English speaker. Leng (2013), though, provides excellent advice in stating “the simpler the vocabulary and construction of sentences, the better.” For tenses, I would add: keep wherever possible to simple present, past, and future tenses. Do not overcomplicate your life. In your scientific writing, you can use mostly

• Present (simple): I analyze

• Past (simple): I analyzed

• Future: I will analyze

Then,

• Introduction: Past (simple) and present (simple)

  “REF found that”; “Four studies revealed that”; “We here examine”; “We propose.”

• Methods: Past (simple)

  “We sampled”; “We measured”; “We carried out”; “We used”; “We made.”

• Results/discussion: present (simple)

  “We show”; “We find”; “The trend is”; “Data are”; “This result is”; “We observe.”

• Conclusion: present and future.

  “We propose”; “We suggest”; “We need”; “We will”, “We question”; “We give.”

In addition, there are many books dedicated to scientific writing and style including Montgomery (2003), Hofmann (2010), Hall (2013), and The Chicago Manual of Style (2010)¹, as well as copyright law (Bielstein 2006), all of which sit on my desk within easy reach. What I will focus on here are the first three error groups, which are somewhat easier to fix.

Scientific writing

Grammar, phraseology, and scientific writing are the topics of entire books, some of the best being Skillen (1974), Strunk and White (1999), Blattes et al. (2013), Garner (2016), Day and Sakaduski (2011), and Gastel and Day (2016). Thus, I will not go anywhere near grammar and writing issues, except for mentioning two common problems which distracted me when reading manuscripts submitted by both English and non-English speaking writers. These two issues are sentence length and paragraphs.

Sentence length

Gopen and Swan (1990) remind the writer that it is not necessarily sentence length that is the problem, but it is how the information in the sentence is organized. A reader naturally expects a certain order of flow to the narrative (Olsen 2015). If this is maintained, then longer sentences can be fine. However, poor organization across long sentences is a common problem (e.g., Anderson 2005; Hofmann 2010; Day and Sakaduski 2011).

Long sentences are generally hard to follow, difficult to digest, and tend to leave the reader lost after the first three lines of the sentence. I have encountered sentences that have gone on for more than half a page. They can take anything up to half an hour to untangle. A good rule is if the sentence goes on for more than three lines of text, then it is too long. If this is the case, then the sentence should be chopped into a series of shorter sentences that are then placed in an order so as to deliver the argument in a logical sequence. Long sentences are made worse by overuse of abbreviations, acronyms, and symbols. In general, an abbreviation should only be made if it is used more than four or five times (The Chicago Manual of Style 2010), and then, there are some cases that just do not need to be abbreviated (e.g., stratovolcano not SV).

Dense pieces of text especially those involving lists of more than two or three points can also be made more accessible by breaking them out as lists led by numbers or bullet points. Such an approach also makes the text easier on the eye for the skim reader, allowing the reader to access quickly the key points of any given section (cf. Kantor 2009).

Paragraphs

The two most common problems are (1) paragraphs that are too long and (2) paragraphs that are too short, especially one-sentence paragraphs. Day and Sakaduski (2011) define the role of a paragraph in scientific writing as follows:

“A paragraph consists of one or more sentences on essentially the same subject. If each set of closely related sentences is neatly packaged in its own paragraph, the reader has no difficulty following related items. Then, with the start of a new paragraph, the reader is automatically prepared for a new set of thoughts, perhaps additional information related to the preceding paragraph, or perhaps material contrasting with the preceding paragraph. If paragraphs are created with care they are of great value to the reader in following the writer’s logical development of thoughts and arguments.”

Thus, paragraphs should be logically sequenced. Within them, so too should be the arguments (sentences) that make up the paragraph. Long paragraphs are those that attempt to consider more than one subject. Any such multi-subject paragraphs need to be chopped up into a series of logically ordered shorter paragraphs. Thus, when subject changes, a paragraph break is needed.

A paragraph should ideally comprise three parts. These are, in order of appearance (Day and Sakaduski 2011):

• 1. An obvious beginning (i.e., the first or topic sentence). This needs to be a clear statement of the paragraph subject.

• 2. A following group of logically sequential sentences that provide evidence in support of the subject, or description of the subject.

• 3. An obvious ending (the final sentence) which is the conclusion to the paragraph and provides a transition to the next.

Thus, to provide its role in delivering an argument, a paragraph can rarely be a single sentence. For paragraphs not ending in a definite conclusion, then the first sentence of the following paragraph should make it clear that a transition in subject has occurred (Day and Sakaduski 2011). This requires use of link words (such as: because, for example, as a rule…) and application of logic that relate the following paragraph to its precedent (Blattes et al. 2013).

Scientific content

By far, the most frequent error, being an issue for 50% of the cases examined, involved citations and references, or lack of them (Fig. 2). The Walden University Writing Center² is an excellent guide for checking the completeness of references and how they should be incorporated into the text, and states:

“Citing sources properly is essential to avoid plagiarism in your writing. Not citing sources properly could imply that the ideas, information, and phrasing you are using are your own, when they actually originated with another author. Plagiarism doesn't just mean copy and pasting another author's words.”

(From: https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/evidence/citations)

Avoiding this boils down to ensuring:

• 1. Whenever a source is used, then a reference is given;

• 2. That support is given for all statements that are not supported by your own work with appropriate references;

• 3. Use of references to distinguish between your work and that of others.

Reference selection should consider the full breadth of relevant literature in terms of time and group. For example, selection should not just focus on the most recent work of a single group when many have been active in the area of study for several decades. Even if a source is old, it does not mean that it is not relevant or is out of date. Indeed, if a first discovery, equation, or definition was made in 1925, then this must be the primary reference. If the literature is large, then it is worth using an “e.g.,” and then citing at least three studies. In addition, to avoid the reader having to go to a third-party source, “references therein” should not be overused; instead, give some of the most important references so that the reader knows where to go. Finally, avoid secondary referencing, that is, citing a paper that you have not consulted, but which was cited by another paper that you read.

On occasion during the final read through, I would notice a scientific problem. My immediate reaction was always: surely the reviewers and handling editor caught that? Invariably, they had; the authors had simply not attended thoroughly to their corrections³. Frequently, handling editors would pass such cases on to me noting that essential corrections were outstanding, but they were unable to persuade the authors to complete them. This issue often caused immense delay, not to mention frustration, for all parties. However, the solution is simple: do your corrections and listen to the handling editor. Trust the handling editor because, as Hunter (2013) points out, “the Editor-in-Chief is the leader of a team” who are all on the same page regarding journal standards, format, style, and policy.

I have listed the most common errors for all eight scientific categories in Table 2, while suggesting solutions to avoid holdups arising from such oversights. For quantification, I would like to make a final remark on the use of platitudes, superlatives, and generalities. Hopkins (1923) wrote:

Table 2 Common errors in terms of scientific content. Solutions in quotation marks are examples of phrases that can clean the problem up, where REF = Reference

“Platitudes and generalities leave no impression. To say, ‘Best in the world,’ ‘Unique findings,’ etc., are at best simply claiming the expected. But superlatives of that sort are usually damaging. They suggest a tendency to exaggerate, a careless truth. They lead readers to discount all the statements that you make.”

Instead, Hopkins (1923) suggested, “a definite statement is usually accepted. Actual figures are generally not discounted.” In short, hard numbers best support scientific findings, not superlatives; and generality (e.g., use of words such as high, short, or small) should be avoided. Leave the reader to decide whether your work is “the best,” “novel,” or “unique,” as based on the evidence you provide them.

Format

Of the format group, four of the five issues (figure and table format, copyright, and following Bulletin of Volcanology style) could have been cleared up if the author had simply read and followed the instructions to the authors. In all cases, a 10-min read of this document could have saved up to 4 weeks of delay. I know it is a boring document, but we have spent much time on it to allow a fault-free process. For example, the Bulletin of Volcanology does not have section numbers. Thus, at proof setting, any section numbers are stripped out. If, though, in the text cross-referencing by section number remains (e.g., “see Section 3.2), then this will stay in the text and be meaningless. In addition, a submission that is not even close to expected journal format points to disrespect to the journal, not to mention a disregard for the voluntary time and effort of reviewers and editors. It means you have not even glanced at the instructions that a series of editors have put a lot of time, thought, and effort into constructing; for your benefit and to save us all time. Worse, if a submission is in the format of another journal, it suggests that it has been rejected from a first choice journal and has now been sent to the second best. Be very careful to change the format to that of the new journal, and use the original review (at the other journal) to improve the manuscript before submitting it to the new journal.

Figure format problems

Most common figure format issues were as follows:

• Font size too small;

• Missing scale bar (or ambiguous scales, e.g., how high is the “house” for scale);

• Missing legends and/or need for labelling;

• Missing axis labels or labels lacking units;

• Letter burnt into the figure, and/or used in the text to call out the figure sub-part (i.e., Fig. 1a), in the wrong case.

All of which are written into our instructions to authors.

Table format and rounding

At proof setting, we have the most trouble with tables, equations, and special symbols. These do not always convert well. Thus, during proof checks, be sure to pay special attention to these items. For example, formats may not have been retained in equations, columns and rows may be out of line in tables, or cells in a table may be misplaced. Likewise, triple check that all author names are spelt correctly and addresses are correct. Once published, the only way to correct such an error is through publication of an erratum.

In preparing tables, as well as in the text and on axis labels, think about the degree of rounding that is justified. For example, 38.42 m, 38.4 m, 38 m, or 40 m? Which of these degrees of rounding are justified, and what is the uncertainty and/or error? Avoid false precision, that is presenting numerical data in a format that implies better precision than that justified.

Copyright, permissions, and credits

For reuse of unpublished material from other sources, such as photographs, ensure that permission has been obtained for reuse. Then, ensure that credit is given in the figure caption. For reuse of published material, you must obtain copyright permission. This is the author’s obligation and is not that difficult to do and is usually at no cost (see Online Resource and Bielstein (2006) for more details). Note that reuse of Google Earth imagery also has copyright requirements (see https://www.google.com/permissions/geoguidelines/attr-guide.html).

Structure

For 30% of manuscripts handled (Table 1), serious organization issues remained at the final edit (Fig. 2). Most of these issues had already been pointed to by the reviewers and handling editor, and led to some of the longest holdups, of 10 weeks or more. Issues revolved around

• Poor title and/or keywords (plus, no keywords or too many keywords);

• Weak abstract, which did not standalone;

• Poor introduction (I);

• Weak or no methods (M);

• Mixing of IMRDC (R = Results; D = Discussion) material between sections⁴;

• Poor or no conclusion (C);

• IMRDC is out of order;

• Poorly sequenced material within individual sections.

All textbooks (e.g., Woods 2002; Montgomery 2003; Hering and Hering 2010; Hall 2013; Olson 2015; Gastel and Day 2016) devoted to writing scientific papers point to the need to a logical sequencing and collation of material, which for a research paper is the IMRDC sequence (Sollaci and Pereira 2004)⁵. This is the order that the reader expects to find the material.

In addition, mixing of material among sections, and poorly sequencing the arguments within each section, makes a paper extremely hard to read and follow; meaning that the potentially interested reader will give up and stop reading. Figure 3 gives a road map for the sequencing and organization of material across a manuscript, as well as within each section. This is also the organization of the Online Resource template, which can thus be used to ensure that material is in the correct sequence.

Fig. 3

Road map for the preparation, sequencing, and organization of a scientific publication. Detail of information that should be included in each element is given in the lower part. Dashed line marked “s” in introduction section indicates potential break out of information into a further section entitled “setting.” Note that sections need to be named correctly. See Online information for full template

Title and keywords

The title of your manuscript is the first advertisement for the work as on, for example, Google Scholar or a new issue announcement (table of contents) released by the publisher. Therefore, the title must accurately describe the contents of the manuscript and make people want to read the work, while being easy to read. An effective title should thus

• Convey the main topics of the study;

• Highlight the importance of the research;

• Be concise (it should not be a sentence).

For the keywords, think about whom you want to find the work, and select words accordingly. As Leng (2013) points out, “what key words, not in the title, are they likely to use?”

Abstract

The abstract needs to be a “miniature version of the paper” (Gastel and Day 2016). It is thus not a table of contents or a preface, nor is it an acknowledgment or an introduction. It needs to be a summary of the manuscript that includes all elements of the paper and in the same order as the paper itself, i.e., IRMDC. The abstract also needs to stand alone. That is, it needs to summarize the paper to such an extent that the reader can understand the content of the manuscript without going to it. Thus, the abstract needs to be clear and precise, while being a mini version of the paper. As Landes (1966) pointed out, the abstract should not read as follows:

Abstract. The field area and subject of study is introduced. The methodologies are described and results are given. Our results allow us to discuss the subject and better understand the field area. In conclusion we present a new model for the process examined.

In general, avoid words such as “described” and “discussed,” and instead, make those descriptions and discussions: give details, facts, and numbers. Make sure the following questions are answered:

• ✓ What was done?

• ✓ Why did you do it?

• ✓ How did you do it?

• ✓ What did you find?

• ✓ Why are these findings useful and important?

Much care should be placed into preparing the abstract as many readers will only read this. In most cases, the abstract is the only part of the article that appears in indexing databases (e.g., Web of Science, PubMed, or Google Scholar). It will thus be the most accessed part of the paper. Because the reader may not be able to access the full paper, the abstract must not refer to inaccessible elements such as figures, tables, and references. The general rule is that references should not be included in the abstract, but if they absolutely have to be included, then they have to be placed in full format, i.e., <Authors> (YYYY) <Paper Title>. <Journal> <Volume>: <page numbers> <DOI>.

Introduction and conclusion

Smith (2013) writes, “the main job of the introduction is to tell the readers why you have undertaken the study.” However, you also need to set the work within a general context: why did you do this work, and what does it add to our general understanding? Thus, the introduction needs to do the following:

• ✓ Define the theme/problem;

• ✓ Set the context, through a reference-supported review of the problem to be attacked;

• ✓ State what is lacking and/or pose a question;

• ✓ Briefly describe how you are going to provide what is lacking and/or answer the question.

If, in the introduction, you have set up or posed a question, then in the conclusion, you need to answer it. The conclusion should thus summarize your findings, without repeating the discussion, and then sum up with:

• ➢ What has your research added to our understanding of a generic process.

Methods

Drummond (2013) writes, “you must describe, in a logical sequence, how your study was designed and executed, and how you analyzed the data.” Leng (2013) adds the oft-repeated argument:

“Include the necessary information for anyone wishing to repeat the study or conduct a similar study: give precise details of instrumentation, materials, data analysis and so on.”

Of the manuscripts considered here, 10% had no methodology. The minimum items that should go into the methodology are given in Fig. 3.

Triangles

The whole organization and presentation process boils down to one shape: an inverted triangle way of organizing and structuring your work. Journalists are trained to do this, and it involves placing the most important point first, and the least important point last (The Missouri Group 2008). This applies from the scale of the entire manuscript, through sections and paragraphs to that of the sentence (Fig. 4). In short, at item one of any manuscript (i.e., the title) and within any following section (abstract, then IMRDC), and then paragraph or sentence, you will have all of the reader’s attention.

• ➢ Get it right and they read on;

• ➢ Get it wrong, and they do not.

Fig. 4

Organization of material within (i) the manuscript, (ii) sections, (iii) paragraphs, (iv) sentences, and (v) phrases. The inverted triangles close out in terms of reader attention and will to read. If you lose the reader at any point within any of the inverted triangles, then you have likely lost them permanently

You can lose the reader at the title, or you can lose the reader with the phraseology of sentences in a paragraph. You absolutely do not want to do the former and should strive to avoid the latter. You need the reader to keep reading, so that they at least view your results and, best, arrive at the conclusion.

Summary

Unlike impatient readers, reviewers, associate editors and the Editor-in-Chief read on. They read on however well (or badly) written, presented, formatted, and/or organized the manuscript is. They read on because they want you to reach the audience you need, they want your paper to be read, understood and used, and they want you to be proud of your paper and the journal in which you are publishing.

The aim of the handling editors and Editor-in-Chief is to help an author achieve maximum impact, through clarity of communication, correctness of message, and consistency of format. You can help these heavily overloaded people by passing on a manuscript that is as good as it can possibly be in terms of scientific content, format, and structure.

To help with these issues, we have built a manuscript template containing extended instructions to authors and guidelines to ensure that the scientific content is in good order and that the format is correct. This is available in the Online Information linked from this editorial. It is also linked from https://www.springer.com/journal/445 for download and use during manuscript preparation. The template contains detail on further resolving format issues not included in this Editorial. It also follows the IMRDC structure presented here, and which appropriate material as given in Fig. 3 should be placed.

Finally, always, ALWAYS, ALWAYS thoroughly check the proofs. Do not just answer any questions asked by the proof setter, but check that the text reads well and is correctly laid out. Check that Figures and Tables are correctly reproduced and of a readable size, that captions have been correctly linked to their figures (i.e., Fig. 1 has the caption to Fig. 1 and not Fig. 2), and that Figures/Tables are correctly called out from the text. Check that names and addresses are correct, that no items, including text parts, have been omitted, and that special symbols and equations have been correctly reproduced. Check everything. Check everything twice.

Appendix A: Notes on the SI (Système International) system of units

A large number of problems (mostly collated within unit problems, figure format problems, BV format, and table format) resulted from authors not following the International System of Units (2006) standard, as iterated by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (2008). We follow the International System of Units (2006). This involves 11 protocols, where all examples given are taken from handled cases.

Protocol I: Quantities

• Quantity symbols are always written, using single or Latin letters, in italic font.

  For example: m = mass, t = time, n =amount.

• For some quantities, a variety of symbols can be used, e.g., length: l, x, r.

• For others, a single mandatory style must be used, e.g., temperature: T.

Protocol II: Units

• Unit symbols are written in upright, lowercase roman font.

  For example: m = meter (note the difference between: m, m, and M = mega)

• An exception is liter which can be written l or L so as to avoid confusion with the numeral 1 (one) or the letter l.

• Units derived from a proper name are capitalized.

  For example: Pa (= Pascal), N (=Newton), K (= Kelvin).

• Note the difference between k (kilo) and K. Kilogram and kilometer are kg and km, never Kg or Km.

Protocol III: Writing out units

• Unit symbols are mathematical entities, not abbreviations. They are thus not followed by a full stop.

  For example: “75 cm long,” not “75 cm. long.”

• Exception: if the symbol is at the end of a sentence.

• Unit symbols must not be pluralized.

  For example: 75 cm not 75 cms.

• Abbreviations and full names cannot be mixed.

  For example: m/s or meters per second not m per second.

Protocol IV: Abbreviation

• To avoid ambiguities, abbreviations for symbols are not permitted.

• For example:

  • mm² or square millimeter not sq. mm

  • s or second not sec

  • cm³ or cubic centimeter not cc

  • km/h or kilometers per hour not kph

• The same applies to extended forms of the symbol.

  For example: g not gr or gr.

Protocol V: Formatting

• The numerical value always precedes a unit, and a space is always used to separate the unit from the number.

  For example: 12.3 g not 12.3g

• When the unit is spelled out, the normal rules of grammar apply (23 kilometers).

Protocol VI: Angle symbols

• Unit symbols for degree, minute, and second for plane angle are °, ', and ''.

• In this case, no space is left between the numerical value and the unit symbol (i.e., 30° 22' 8'' not 30 ° 22 ' 8 '').

Protocol VII: Temperatures

• Kelvin (capital K; no ° symbol, i.e., K not °K) is the SI base unit for temperature.

• However, Celsius (°C) is also recognized.

• Fahrenheit (°F) is not recognized.

• The numerical value for a temperature is separated from the unit symbol by a space.

  For example: 30.2 °C or 273 K not 30.2°C, 30.2° C; 273K, 273°K, or 273 °K.

Protocol VIII: Percentages

• The symbol for percent may be used with the SI to represent %.

• A space separates the number from the symbol: 99.9 % not 99.9%.

Protocol IX: The unit must always be given

• For example, for temperature, 26.2 °C, not 26.2 ° and definitely not 26.2° (because this is an angle).

Protocol X: Quantity formats

• Quantity units must not be split (10.234 m not 10 m 23.4 cm

• Quantity units need to be kept in the format of the highest order (10.234 m not 1023.4 cm)

Protocol XI: Writing out of quantities

• Quantity symbols must always be placed in the correct order, and the letter format respected.

  For example: 7 km (kilometers) not 7 Km (this is Kelvin meter).

• The same applies to any symbol that follows the quantity.

  For example: 7 MJ (Megajoules) not 7 Mj (Mega jour).

• To avoid ambiguity, close up the prefix and symbol.

  For example: millisecond is ms not m s, which is meter times second).