Undergraduate Manuscript Writing Guide

A Guide to Writing a Publishable Manuscript for Undergraduate Students

A scientific manuscript consists of several essential sections, including the Title, Author(s), Author Affiliation(s), Corresponding Author's Email, Abstract, Keywords, Abbreviations, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion, Acknowledgements, and References. Each section serves a specific purpose and contributes to communicating research clearly, accurately, and effectively.

In addition to these traditional sections, the PreScientist24 Student Manuscript includes a unique feature: Notes from the Author. This special section gives students an opportunity to share the inspiration behind their work, reflect on their research and writing journey, and describe the knowledge, skills, and experiences they gained throughout the project. It allows readers to better understand the story behind the research and the student's personal and academic growth.

We encourage every undergraduate student to complete this section thoughtfully and honestly. These reflections not only make each manuscript more personal and meaningful but also inspire other students to explore, discover, and develop a lifelong passion for research, innovation, and scientific writing. More importantly, they encourage students to become curious, compassionate, and socially responsible individuals who use their knowledge, creativity, and critical-thinking skills to help others, contribute to their communities, and make a positive impact on society.

Now it is time to begin an exciting journey! Together, we will learn how to think like a scientist, conduct research with curiosity and integrity, and write a publishable scientific manuscript step by step. Whether this is your first manuscript or the beginning of a lifelong research career, this guide will help you develop the confidence and skills needed to communicate your ideas effectively. Let's get started!

1.0. Definition

We will confirm the title and write the abstract, keywords, and abbreviations after completing the writing of a manuscript. That way, the title, abstract, keywords, and abbreviation truly reflect the content.

However, in this section we will define the definition and give some ideas of how to improve your knowledge to write the appropriate title, abstract, keywords, abbreviation, introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, conclusion, acknowledgement, and references that completely reflect the manuscript.

Title

The title is a concise, accurate, and informative statement that reflects the main topic, objective, or principal findings of the research. A well-written title should attract readers' attention while clearly indicating the scope and focus of the study.

Author Name(s)

The authors are the individuals who made substantial intellectual contributions to the research, including study design, data collection, data analysis, interpretation of results, or manuscript preparation. The full names of all contributing authors should be listed in the appropriate order.

Author Name(s): First Author^1*, Second Author¹, Third Author² (Full names of all contributing authors.).

Affiliation

The affiliation identifies the academic institution or organization where each author conducted the research. It typically includes the department, university or institution, city, state/province (if applicable), and country.

Affiliation: ¹Department, University/Institution, City, Country.

²Department, University/Institution, City, Country.

Corresponding Author

The corresponding author is responsible for communicating with the journal throughout the submission, peer-review, and publication processes. This author also responds to questions about the manuscript after publication. An institutional or professional email address should be provided.

*Correspondence (Corresponding Author): Email Address.

Keywords

Keywords are a set of carefully selected words or short phrases that represent the major topics, methods, or concepts discussed in the manuscript. Appropriate keywords improve the discoverability of the article in electronic databases and search engines.

Abbreviations

The Abbreviations section lists all non-standard abbreviations and acronyms used throughout the manuscript. Each abbreviation (for example, DNA or AI) should be defined when first introduced in the text to improve readability and ensure clarity for readers.

Abstract

The Abstract is a concise summary of the entire study. It briefly describes the research background, objectives, methodology, principal findings, and major conclusions without including unnecessary details or extensive references. The abstract should enable readers to quickly determine the relevance of the study.

Introduction

The Introduction provides the scientific background and context of the research topic. It reviews relevant literature, identifies the research gap or unresolved problem, explains the significance of the study, and clearly states the research objectives, hypotheses, or research questions. References should be current, reliable, and directly relevant to the topic.

Materials and Methods

The Materials and Methods section describe the research design, study population or samples, materials, equipment, experimental procedures, survey methods, data collection techniques, statistical analyses, and ethical considerations (when applicable). The description should be sufficiently detailed to allow other researchers to reproduce or validate the study. Appropriate references should be included for established methods.

Results

The Results section presents the findings objectively and systematically without interpretation. Results should be organized logically using text, tables, figures, graphs, or photographs as appropriate. Statistical analyses should be reported to support the findings, and only observations directly obtained from the study should be presented.

Discussion

The Discussion interprets and explains the significance of the study's findings in relation to the research objectives and existing scientific literature. It compares the results with previous studies, explores possible biological, physical, chemical, or social mechanisms underlying the findings, discusses the strengths and limitations of the study, and considers the broader implications for science, education, policy, or practice. The discussion may also recommend future research directions. References should be current, relevant, and evidence based.

Conclusion

The Conclusion summarizes the principal findings of the study and emphasizes their scientific or practical significance. It should directly address the research objectives or hypotheses, highlight the major contributions of the research, and may include recommendations for future investigations, applications, or policy development. New data or unsupported claims should not be introduced in this section.

Acknowledgements

The Acknowledgements section recognizes individuals, teachers, parents, schools, organizations, mentors, volunteers, or funding agencies that provided valuable support, guidance, resources, or financial assistance for the project but did not meet the criteria for authorship.

When appropriate, authors should also acknowledge the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools (e.g., ChatGPT) that assisted with language editing, grammar correction, spelling, sentence structure, or writing improvement. However, AI should be used only as a support tool and should not replace the student's own thinking, creativity, critical analysis, scientific judgment, intellectual contribution, or original work.

Authors are fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, integrity, and final content of their manuscripts. Any use of AI tools that made a substantial contribution to manuscript preparation should be clearly disclosed in the Acknowledgements section. Students are also responsible for carefully reviewing and verifying all AI-generated suggestions, ensuring the accuracy of the information presented, and confirming that all sources, citations, and references are accurate, properly attributed, and comply with copyright and academic integrity requirements.

Conflicts of Interest

The Conflicts of Interest section discloses any financial, professional, personal, or institutional relationships that could influence, or appear to influence, the research or interpretation of its findings. If no conflicts exist, the authors should state:

"The authors declare no conflict of interest."

References

The References section provides a complete and accurately formatted list of all scholarly sources cited in the manuscript. References should be relevant, reliable, current, and formatted according to the PreScientist24 citation style. Every in-text citation must appear in the reference list, and every reference listed must be cited within the manuscript.

2.0. Thinking About the “Title” of a Manuscript

When preparing a manuscript for publication, a student should think of the title as the paper’s first and most important advertisement. Editors, reviewers, and readers often decide whether to look further based on the title alone.

Before submitting, ask:

Does the title clearly state the topic?
Does it highlight the main contribution?
Is it specific rather than vague?
Does it contain important keywords?
Is it concise and easy to understand?
Does it accurately reflect the study's findings?
Would it make someone interested in reading more?

A good manuscript title is clear, specific, searchable, and faithful to the study's content. If a reader sees only the title, they should still have a good idea of what the paper is about.

A good title should help readers answer one simple question immediately:

"What is this paper about?"

3.0. Thinking About the “Introduction” Section of a Manuscript

Introduces the research topic/brief background, significance of the study, research gaps and objective, and hypothesis or research questions. References should be current and relevant.

When writing a manuscript for publication, a student should think of the Introduction as the section that answers the question:

"Why was this study needed?"

A good introduction guides readers from the broader topic to the specific research question and convinces them that the study is important.

Many successful introductions follow this structure:

Background → Literature Review → Knowledge Gap → Importance → Purpose → Research Question/Hypotheses

3.1. Example Outline

Explain the importance of the research topic
Summarize relevant previous studies
Identify the knowledge gap
Explain why the gap should be addressed
State the objective(s) of the study
Present the research question(s) or hypotheses

3.2. Before submitting the manuscript, ask:

Does the introduction explain the topic clearly?
Does it summarize key previous research?
Does it identify a genuine knowledge gap?
Does it explain why the gap is important?
Does it clearly state the study objective?
Does it end with research questions or hypotheses?

A strong introduction does not simply provide background information—it builds a logical argument that leads readers to conclude that the study is necessary and worth publishing.

4.0. Thinking About the “Materials and Methods” Section of a Manuscript

When reviewers, mentors, or journal editors say a student should "think about the Materials and Methods of a manuscript," they usually mean that the student should critically evaluate whether the study's procedures are clear, appropriate, reproducible, and scientifically sound.

Here are some key questions a student can ask while reviewing or preparing the Materials and Methods section:

4.1. Key questions a student can ask

4.1.1. Is the research design appropriate?

What type of study was conducted (experimental, observational, survey, case study, etc.)?
Does the design answer the research question effectively?
Are there control groups or comparison groups when needed?

4.1.2. Are the materials adequately described?

What samples, organisms, participants, chemicals, instruments, software, or datasets were used?
Are sources, manufacturers, versions, or specifications provided?
Could another researcher obtain the same materials?

4.1.3. Are the methods described clearly?

Is there a step-by-step description of what was done?
Is the information detailed enough for replication?
Are important parameters, settings, and conditions reported?

4.1.4. Is the sample size justified?

How many participants, specimens, or observations were included?
Were inclusion and exclusion criteria explained?
Is the sample size large enough to support the conclusions?

4.1.5. Were ethical considerations addressed?

Was approval obtained from an ethics committee or institutional review board when required?
Was informed consent obtained from participants?
Were animal welfare guidelines followed if animals were used?

4.1.6. Are statistical methods appropriate?

Which statistical tests were used?
Are the tests suitable for the type of data collected?
Are significance levels, confidence intervals, or other analytical criteria reported?

4.1.7. Can the study be reproduced?

Could another researcher repeat the experiment using only the information in the manuscript?
Are any critical details missing?
Are software versions, protocols, and analytical workflows adequately documented?

4.1.8. What are the limitations of the methods?

Are there potential sources of bias?
Could measurement errors affect the results?
Are there methodological weaknesses that should be acknowledged?

4.2. Example of Critical Thinking

Instead of simply reading:

"Blood samples were analyzed using standard laboratory methods."

A student should ask:

Which laboratory methods?
Which equipment was used?
Were the methods validated?
How were samples stored and processed?
Could another laboratory reproduce these analyses?

4.3. If You Are Writing a Manuscript

When thinking about your own Materials and Methods section, aim for three goals:

Transparency – clearly explain what was done.
Reproducibility – provide enough detail for others to repeat the work.
Scientific validity – use methods that appropriately address the research question.

A useful test is: "Could a competent researcher in my field replicate this study based solely on the Materials and Methods section?" If the answer is yes, the section is usually on the right track.

5.0. Thinking About the “Results” Section of a Manuscript

When a student is asked to "think about the Results section of a manuscript," the goal is to evaluate what the study found, how clearly those findings are presented, and whether the data support the authors' conclusions.

5.1. Key Questions to Ask

I. What are the main findings?

What are the most important results?
Which findings directly address the research question or hypotheses?
Are the primary outcomes clearly stated?

II. Are the results presented logically?

Do the results follow the order of the methods or research objectives?
Is there a clear progression from one finding to the next?
Can you easily follow the story the data are telling?

III. Do the figures and tables support the text?

Are all figures and tables clearly labeled?
Does the text accurately describe the data shown?
Are important findings highlighted without repeating every number from the tables?

IV. Are the statistical results reported appropriately?

Are relevant statistics provided (e.g., p-values, confidence intervals, effect sizes)?
Are the statistical analyses consistent with those described in the Methods?
Are the reported differences statistically and practically meaningful?

V. Are the results presented objectively?

Does the section focus on reporting findings rather than explaining them?
Are interpretations reserved primarily for the Discussion section?
Is the language neutral and evidence-based?

VI. Are negative or unexpected findings reported?

Did the authors report results that did not support their hypothesis?
Are non-significant findings included when relevant?
Is there evidence of selective reporting?

VII. Do the data support the claims?

Is each claim backed by data?
Are there conclusions implied that go beyond the results presented?
Are correlations being incorrectly presented as causation?

VIII. Are there patterns, trends, or anomalies?

What trends emerge from the data?
Are there outliers or unexpected observations?
Could alternative explanations exist?

5.2. Example of Critical Thinking

Suppose the Results section states:

"Treatment A significantly improved test scores compared with the control group."

A thoughtful student might ask:

By how much did scores improve?
What statistical test was used?
What was the sample size?
Is the difference educationally meaningful, or only statistically significant?
Are confidence intervals reported?
Is the result shown in a figure or table?

5.3. If You Are Writing the Results Section

A strong Results section should:

Report

Present the findings clearly and accurately.

Organize

Move from the most important findings to supporting results.

Support

Use tables and figures effectively.

Avoid Over-Interpretation

Report what the data show without extensive explanation of why it happened (that belongs mainly in the Discussion).

5.4. A Useful Checklist

Before submitting a manuscript, ask:

Does every result relate to a research question or objective?
Are all important findings reported?
Are tables and figures easy to understand?
Are statistical analyses clearly presented?
Do the data support the stated findings?
Have I avoided interpreting results beyond what the evidence shows?

If a reader can quickly identify the study's major findings and verify them from the data presented, the Results section is generally doing its job well.

6.0. Thinking About the “Discussion” Section of a Manuscript

When a student is asked to "think about the Discussion section of a manuscript," the focus is on understanding what the results mean, how they fit into existing knowledge, and what their implications and limitations are. The Discussion is where authors interpret their findings and explain their significance.

6.1. Key Questions to Ask

a. What is the main message?

What are the authors' key conclusions?
Which findings do they consider most important?
Is the main takeaway clearly stated?

b. Do the decisions follow from the results?

Are the interpretations supported by the data presented in the Results section?
Do the authors avoid overstating their findings?
Are causal claims justified by the study design?

c. How do the findings compare with previous research?

Do the authors discuss whether their findings agree or disagree with prior studies?
If there are differences, do they offer plausible explanations?
Have they cited (reference) relevant literature?

d. Why might the findings have occurred?

Do the authors propose reasonable mechanisms or explanations?
Are alternative explanations considered?
Are interpretations based on evidence rather than speculation?

e. What are the study's strengths?

What aspects of the study increase confidence in the findings?
Are methodological strengths identified?
Do the strengths support the validity of the decisions/conclusions?

f. What are the limitations?

Have the authors acknowledged weaknesses in the study?
Could biases, measurement errors, or sample limitations affect the results?
Do the limitations influence how broadly the findings can be applied?

g. What are the practical or theoretical implications?

Why do these findings matter?
How might they influence future research, policy, practice, or theory?
Are the implications proportional to the evidence?

h. What future research is needed?

What questions remain unanswered?
Do the authors suggest logical next steps?
How could future studies address current limitations?

6.2. Example of Critical Thinking

Suppose the Discussion states:

"Our intervention improves student learning and should be implemented broadly."

A thoughtful student might ask:

Did the study actually measure learning outcomes reliably?
Was the sample large and diverse enough to support broad implementation?
Could other factors explain the improvement?
Have the authors discussed limitations that might affect generalizability?
Does the recommendation significantly follow the results?
Is the recommendation stronger than the evidence warrants?

6.3. Common Structure of a Strong Discussion

Brief summary of the main findings
Interpretation of those findings
Comparison with previous studies
Explanation of possible mechanisms
Strengths and limitations
Implications
Future research directions
Concluding statement

6.4. Common Pitfalls to Watch For

Overstating conclusions
Ignoring contradictory findings
Claiming causation from correlational data
Failing to discuss limitations
Excessive speculation
Repeating results without interpretation

6.5. If You Are Writing the Discussion

A useful approach is to answer these questions:

What did we find?
What do the findings mean?
How do they compare with previous research?
What are the strengths and limitations?
Why do the findings matter?
What should happen next?

6.6. A Simple Checklist

Before submitting a manuscript, ask:

Are the conclusions supported by the results?
Have I compared my findings with relevant literature?
Have I acknowledged important limitations?
Have I avoided exaggerating the significance of the findings?
Have I explained the implications clearly?
Have I suggested reasonable future directions?

A strong Discussion section helps readers move from "What did the study find?" to "Why do these findings matter?" while staying firmly grounded in the evidence.

7.0. Thinking About the “Conclusion” Section of a Manuscript

When a student is asked to "think about the Conclusion section of a manuscript," the goal is to evaluate whether the paper ends with a clear, accurate, and meaningful summary of what was learned/found from the study.

The Conclusion is typically the final message that readers remember. It should briefly answer the research question, highlight the significance of the findings, and avoid introducing new information.

7.1. Key Questions to Ask

A. Does the conclusion answer the research question?

Does it clearly state what the study found?
Does it address the objectives or hypotheses presented in the Introduction?
Is the central message easy to identify?

B. Is the conclusion supported by the results?

Are the statements based on evidence presented in the manuscript?
Do the authors avoid making claims that go beyond the data?
Is the level of certainty appropriate?

C. Does it summarize the most important findings?

Are the key results highlighted concisely?
Does it focus on the main contributions rather than minor details?
Is unnecessary repetition avoided?

D. Does it explain the significance of the study?

Why do the findings matter?
What contribution does the study make to the field?
Does it help readers understand the broader importance of the work?

E. Are limitations and context respected?

Do the authors avoid overgeneralizing the findings?
Are conclusions consistent with the study's scope and limitations?
Is the language balanced and scientifically responsible?

F. Does it suggest future directions when appropriate?

Are recommendations for future research logical and realistic?
Do they arise naturally from the study's findings and limitations?
Are practical applications identified if relevant?

G. Does it avoid introducing new information?

Are new results, analyses, or references absent from the Conclusion?
Is the section focused on synthesizing rather than expanding the study?

7.2. Example of Critical Thinking

Suppose the Conclusion states:

"This treatment should become the standard therapy for all patients."

A thoughtful student might ask:

Was the study large enough to justify such a recommendation?
Were diverse patient populations included?
Were long-term outcomes evaluated?
Do the data support a broad clinical recommendation, or only suggest potential benefits?

7.3. Characteristics of a Strong Conclusion

A strong Conclusion is:

Clear – easy to understand.
Concise – focuses on the main message.
Evidence-based – supported by the study's results.
Balanced – acknowledges the study's scope.
Meaningful – explains why the findings matter.

7.4. Common Mistakes to Watch For

Repeating the entire Discussion section.
Introducing new results or arguments.
Making unsupported claims.
Exaggerating the importance of the findings.
Ignoring important limitations.
Ending with vague statements such as "more research is needed" without explanation.

7.5. A Useful Framework for Writing a Conclusion

Many strong conclusions follow this pattern:

Restate the research objective or question.
Summarize the main findings.
State the significance or contribution.
Provide a brief future perspective or recommendation (if appropriate).

Example:

This study investigated the effect of X on Y. The results showed that X significantly improved Y under the conditions tested. These findings contribute to our understanding of Z and suggest that X may be a useful approach in similar settings. Further studies with larger and more diverse populations are needed to confirm these results.

7.6. A Student's Checklist

Before accepting a manuscript's conclusion—or writing one—ask:

Does it directly answer the research question?
Is every claim supported by the study's results?
Are the conclusions proportional to the evidence?
Does it explain why the findings are important?
Does it avoid introducing new information?
Does it leave the reader with a clear understanding of the study's contribution?

A well-written Conclusion should allow a reader to answer, in a few sentences: "What did this study discover, and why does it matter?"

8.0. Thinking About the “Acknowledgement” Section of a Manuscript

When a student is asked to "think about the Acknowledgement section of a manuscript," the goal is to understand who contributed to the work, how the research was supported, and whether all contributions are disclosed appropriately.

The Acknowledgement section is not about the scientific findings themselves. Instead, it provides transparency regarding assistance, funding, resources, and contributions that do not meet the criteria for authorship.

8.1. Key Questions to Ask

1). Who is being acknowledged?

Are individuals thanked for technical assistance, data collection, editing, statistical advice, or administrative support?
Did these individuals contribute to the study without qualifying as authors?
Are their contributions described clearly?

2). Are contributions appropriately categorized?

Should any acknowledged individual actually be listed as an author based on their level of contribution?
Are authorship criteria being followed according to the journal or discipline?
Is there any indication of "gift authorship" or omitted authorship?

3). Is funding disclosed?

What organizations, agencies, foundations, or institutions supported the research?
Are grant numbers included when required?
Could the funding source have influenced the study design, analysis, or reporting?

Use entity references when discussing specific organizations. For example, funding might come from National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, University, or Individuals Foundation.

4). Are conflicts of interest addressed elsewhere?

Does the manuscript separately include a conflict-of-interest statement if required?
Are any relationships or support that could influence the research disclosed?
Is the acknowledgment consistent with other disclosure sections?

5). Were institutional resources used?

Were laboratories, research centers, computing facilities, or field sites acknowledged?
Did specialized facilities contribute to the work?
Is institutional support properly recognized?

6). Is the acknowledgment transparent and ethical?

Are all significant non-author contributions recognized?
Have contributors given permission to be named if required by the journal?
Is the section free from excessive praise or irrelevant personal comments?

7). Does the acknowledgment help readers understand the research context?

Does it reveal collaborations, technical support, or resources that were important to the study?
Does it improve transparency about how the research was conducted?

8.2. Example of Critical Thinking

Suppose the Acknowledgement states:

"We thank Dr. Smith for assistance with data analysis."

A thoughtful student might ask:

How substantial was Dr. Smith's role?
Did Dr. Smith only provide advice, or did they help design the analysis and interpret results?
If the contribution was substantial, should authorship have been considered?

Similarly, if the manuscript states:

"This work was supported by Grant XYZ."

A student might ask:

Which organization provided the grant?
Did the funding source have any role in the study design, data collection, analysis, or publication decisions?
Are these relationships adequately disclosed?

8.3. What a Strong Acknowledgement Section Does

A strong Acknowledgement section:

Recognizes meaningful non-author contributions.
Discloses funding sources.
Provides transparency about support received.
Follows ethical authorship standards.
Maintains a professional and concise tone.

8.4. Common Issues to Watch For

Missing funding disclosures.
Failure to acknowledge important contributors.
Including individuals who did not contribute meaningfully.
Using acknowledgements to compensate for inappropriate authorship decisions.
Lack of transparency about external support.
Personal or informal remarks that are not relevant to the research.

8.5. A Student's Checklist

Before accepting or writing an Acknowledgement section, ask:

Are all non-author contributors appropriately recognized?
Are funding sources clearly disclosed?
Are authorship and acknowledgements used correctly?
Is the section transparent and ethical?
Could any disclosed support introduce potential bias that readers should know about?
Is the wording professional and concise?

A well-written Acknowledgement section helps readers understand who supported the research, how it was supported, and whether contributions and funding have been reported transparently and ethically.

9.0. Thinking About the “References” Section of a Manuscript

When a student is asked to "think about the References section of a manuscript," the goal is to evaluate the quality, relevance, accuracy, completeness, and credibility of the sources that support the manuscript.

The References section is more than a list of citations, it shows the scholarly foundation of the study and helps readers verify claims, explore prior research, and assess whether the authors have engaged appropriately with the existing literature.

9.1. Key Questions to Ask

a). Are the references relevant to the study?

Do the cited sources directly support the statements made in the manuscript?
Are the references closely related to the research question?
Are important studies in the field included?

b) Are the sources credible?

Are most references from peer-reviewed journals, reputable books, or trusted organizations?
Are questionable or non-scholarly sources avoided when stronger evidence is available?
Is the quality of evidence appropriate for the claims being made?

For example, references from organizations such as World Health Organization, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or major peer-reviewed journals may provide highly credible support depending on the topic.

c) Are the references current?

Are recent studies included, especially in rapidly evolving fields?
Is the literature review up to date?
Are older references used appropriately for foundational concepts?

d) Are key studies missing?

Have the authors cited the landmark or highly influential papers in the field?
Are competing viewpoints represented?
Could omission of important studies bias the manuscript?

Are citations used accurately?

Does each citation actually support the statement it follows?
Have the authors interpreted the cited studies correctly?
Is there evidence of citation misuse or "citation stretching" (using a source to support a claim it does not make)?

Is the reference list complete and consistent?

Does every in-text citation appear in the reference list?
Does every reference listed appear in the text?
Are author names, titles, journal names, volumes, pages, and publication years complete?

Is the citation style correct?

Does the manuscript follow the journal's required style (e.g., APA, Vancouver, Harvard, Chicago)?
Is formatting consistent throughout the reference list?
Are punctuation, capitalization, and abbreviations used correctly?

Is there evidence of citation bias?

Do the authors cite only studies that support their conclusions?
Are contradictory findings acknowledged?
Is there excessive self-citation?

Are primary sources cited when possible?

Are original studies cited rather than relying only on reviews or secondary sources?
Can readers trace findings back to the original research?
Are systematic reviews and meta-analyses used appropriately?

9.2. Example of Critical Thinking

Suppose a manuscript states:

"Previous studies have proven that online learning is superior to classroom instruction."

A thoughtful student might ask:

Which studies are cited?
Do those studies actually show superiority, or only equivalence?
Were the cited studies conducted in similar populations?
Are there studies with conflicting findings that were omitted?

9.3. Signs of a Strong References Section

A strong References section:

Includes relevant and authoritative sources.
Reflects current knowledge in the field.
Contains foundational studies where appropriate.
Accurately supports claims made in the manuscript.
Follows the journal's citation style consistently.
Demonstrates a balanced review of the literature.

9.4. Common Problems to Watch For

Outdated references in a rapidly changing field.
Missing landmark studies.
Citation errors and formatting inconsistencies.
Overreliance on low-quality sources.
Excessive self-citation.
Selective citation of only supportive evidence.
References that do not actually support the associated claims.

9.5. A Student's Checklist

Before accepting or preparing a References section, ask:

Are the references relevant to the study?
Are the sources credible and authoritative?
Is the literature current and comprehensive?
Are important studies included?
Do the citations accurately support the statements made?
Is the reference list complete and formatted correctly?
Have the authors avoided citation bias?

A well-constructed References section demonstrates that the manuscript is grounded in the existing scientific literature and allows readers to verify, evaluate, and build upon the research.

Note: Also, it is very important to use the link/doi and corresponding reference for all copyright and credit information.

For example, please visit the article that was published by Calista Madej

Coll. J. Chem. Biol. Sci. 2025, 1 (1), 1-11

Link: https://prescientist24.org/articles/08383522072535CJCBSv1-3.pdf

Similarity Index: A small portion of the Writing Guide, including a few sentences, shows similarity to the following primary sources:

www.mdpi.com. Internet Source
www.ijdrt.com. Internet Source
Submitted to Colorado Technical University Online. Student Paper
Deepika Saini, Heena Saini, Neha Singh, Richa Tripathi, Meera K. Bhojani. "Prakriti-base differences in olfactory perception and receptor gene expression: An Ayurgenomics approach", European Journal of Integrative Medicine, 2026. Publication
www.wiseguyreports.com. Internet Source
www.kidney.org. Internet Source
www.ors.org. Internet Source

You must include the following two sections (10 and 11) immediately after the References section in your manuscript.

10. AUTHOR(s) DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT TRANSFER (Yes 🗹 or No 🗹)

Manuscript Title:

Publisher:

10.1. Authorship Contributions and Responsibilities

Yes 🗹 or No 🗹

All individuals listed as authors have made substantial, direct, and intellectual contributions to the work.
Each author has participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for its content.
All authors have reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript prior to submission.

10.2. Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Yes 🗹 or No 🗹

The authors acknowledge the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools during the preparation of this manuscript. AI was used only to assist with language editing, grammar correction, spelling, sentence structure, improving writing clarity, or other appropriate editorial support. Authors revised this paragraph as appropriate, to accurately describe how AI tools were used during the preparation of their manuscript.

The authors confirm that AI did not replace their own ideas, imagination, creativity, critical thinking, scientific judgment, data interpretation, and original intellectual contributions. The authors have carefully reviewed and evaluated all AI-assisted suggestions and take full responsibility for every aspect of their work.

The authors are fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, integrity, and final content of this manuscript. Any substantial use of AI during manuscript preparation has been clearly disclosed in the Acknowledgements section. Students (or parents, teachers, or guardians on behalf of minor students) are responsible for carefully reviewing and verifying all AI-assisted suggestions, ensuring that the information presented is accurate and that all sources, citations, and references are properly cited and attributed in accordance with academic integrity and copyright requirements.

10.3. Acknowledgment of Copyrighted Materials and References

Yes 🗹 or No 🗹

The authors confirm that all copyrighted materials, including figures, tables, illustrations, and referenced content, have been properly cited and acknowledged in accordance with applicable copyright laws, ethical standards, and publication guidelines. Written permission has been obtained where required.

10.4. Originality Statement

Yes 🗹 or No 🗹

The authors declare that this manuscript represents original work. It has not been previously published and is not currently under consideration for publication, in whole or in part, by any other journal, conference, or platform.

10.5. Copyright Transfer Agreement

Yes 🗹 or No 🗹

The authors hereby transfer all copyright ownership of the manuscript titled “?” to “?”, in all forms and media, whether now known or hereafter developed.

All other proprietary rights, including patent rights, are retained by the authors.

11. Notes from the Author

11.1. Author's Note

The Author's Note provides undergraduate students with an opportunity to reflect on their research experience, academic growth, and personal development throughout the project. It allows authors to share the motivation behind their work, the challenges they encountered, the skills they developed, and the lessons they learned. At the same time, it helps readers understand the story behind the research, highlighting the student's curiosity, perseverance, critical thinking, and commitment to scientific inquiry.

An effective Author's Note adds a personal perspective that complements the scientific manuscript, making the publication more engaging and meaningful for fellow students, educators, researchers, and future readers.

There are no right or wrong answers. Write honestly, thoughtfully, and in your own words.

Acknowledgement: AI (e.g., ChatGPT) Support

PreScientist24 encourages the responsible, ethical, and educational use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools, such as ChatGPT, to support student learning. AI should be used only as a learning aid to help students improve their writing, communication, and understanding of scientific concepts. The primary goal of PreScientist24 is to foster students' knowledge, imagination, curiosity, critical thinking, creativity, scientific reasoning, problem-solving skills, and independent learning through the preparation and publication of their own scholarly work.

The Acknowledgements section recognizes individuals, teachers, parents, guardians, schools, organizations, mentors, volunteers, or funding agencies that provided valuable guidance, encouragement, resources, technical assistance, or financial support for the project but did not meet the criteria for authorship.

When appropriate, authors should also acknowledge the use of AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT) that assisted with language editing, grammar correction, spelling, sentence structure, improving clarity, brainstorming ideas, or organizing the manuscript. However, AI must not replace the student's own ideas, imagination, creativity, critical thinking, scientific judgment, data interpretation, or original intellectual contributions. Students are expected to understand, evaluate, and take ownership of every part of their work.

Authors are fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, integrity, and final content of their manuscripts. Any substantial use of AI during manuscript preparation should be clearly disclosed in the Acknowledgements section. Students (or parents, teachers, or guardians on behalf of minor students) are responsible for carefully reviewing and verifying all AI-assisted suggestions, ensuring that the information presented is accurate, that all sources and references are properly cited and attributed, and that the manuscript complies with copyright laws, ethical standards, and the principles of academic integrity.

In conclusion, PreScientist24 encourages responsible and ethical use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools as educational resources only, while ensuring that the ideas, scientific reasoning, conclusions, and overall intellectual contribution remain their own.

Credit and Copyright: AI (ChatGPT) Support

USEFUL LINKS

PreScientist24

At PreScientist24, we are dedicated to sharing knowledge and ideas across community, culture, education, moral values, creativity, and science.

Submit Your Paper