Writing Effective Research Reports

This viewpoint is aimed at the relative novice in research report writing. It is based on the initial conversation I have with Fellows or Trainees as they embark on our first writing collaboration. It has been further developed as part of the preparation for an invited lecture delivered at the Third Movement Disorders Clinical Practice Journal Conference: Translating Good Semiology in Effective Research, held in Cartagena, Colombia in February 2024 (Video 1). Writing a research report can be likened to the process of trying to complete a jigsaw puzzle. The Introduction ("Background" in an abstract) should describe at a macro level, based on the pieces that are already placed in the incomplete puzzle, what can be interpreted about the whole picture. However, rather than describe the detail of every piece or section, the Introduction should demonstrate how the available pieces of the puzzle frame specific knowledge gaps, or incomplete sections of the picture. The Aims then describe which part of the puzzle a research study or report will try to work on, to contribute to a more complete or accurate interpretation of the total picture. The Methods describe how the researchers will go about finding or discovering those missing pieces of the puzzle. The Results describe the details of the pieces that have been discovered by the new research and what that more complete section now shows. Finally, the Discussion describes how the interpretation of the picture as a whole has been changed or clarified by the Results of the current research study and report. It should focus on the specific findings of the report (pieces and section of the puzzle discovered) and how these specific pieces alter or enhance understanding of the puzzle as a whole, not restate in detail everything previously known about all sections of the puzzle. Writing an effective research report, however, begins not with the opening of a blank word processor document (or, if you are a traditionalist, perhaps dusting off a fresh blank piece of paper, or if you are a modernist, perhaps creating a draft with generative artificial intelligence), but instead with the planning of the research. The planning of the research can be conceptualized using the same jigsaw puzzle analogy outlined in the preceding paragraph. Sometimes, the idea of a project or paper is suggested a priori based on a discussion or an interesting case encountered as part of clinical practice. Before embarking on execution, it is still useful to take a back step and consider the proposed project or paper in the jigsaw puzzle/picture framework, combined with research into what is already known. It may be that the proposed project or paper has already been performed or published in a definitive fashion, and will not lead to discovery of missing pieces, but simply duplicate what has already been discovered. The less novel the discovery, the less impact it will have in the academic sphere, and the less likely that it will be accepted for publication in a good journal. Once a research project has been completed, the first writing step that I recommend is to prepare a structured abstract (Table 1), beginning with the Results. Starting with the Results forces one to consider what are the key or topline findings that are of greatest importance and impact. In the case of a clinical trial, the key results will be the primary endpoints that were predetermined as part of the study design. If the study has produced quantitative data, it is often useful to first produce the key figures, graphs or tables that will provide a pictorial summary of the results, as this also focusses attention on the most clinically or scientifically significant findings. Filling in the remaining components of the structured abstract helps to cue a re-examination of the original Aims and Methods and the impact of the Results, based on the Background information that was known before the project was conducted. The critical content of a structured abstract can be derived from the answers to specific plain English questions (Table 1). There are many different types of research reports. Examples include case reports/series; patient cohorts investigated with a specific methodology eg, genetics, neurophysiology, structural or functional imaging; clinical trials; meta-analyses; literature reviews and systematic reviews. Although differing in content, the principals outline can still be used to guide how to plan the research and prepare the report. There are some common traps for those less experienced in research planning and writing. Lack of novelty will make it difficult to get a paper accepted in a good journal. An exception is that if the research findings are not novel, but the findings and clinical or scientific lessons have been forgotten or are not well known. Embarking on a project that lacks novelty can be circumvented by having a good knowledge of the literature and/or first performing a careful literature search on the proposed topic. Poor study design will result in inconclusive findings, especially if there are flaws in the research methodology or choice of endpoints. A common error is to design experiments or observations that support your hypothesis, failure to include observations as part of the protocol that would be incompatible with and therefore refute the hypothesis, or a failure to consider and acquire data on potential confounders. Scientific knowledge and logic are important here, and can be acquired by reading and learning from research methodology used in successful, published studies, and also discussing and having colleagues review your own proposed research methodology. A poorly focussed Discussion will detract from a research report. Common mistakes include repeating too much of the Introduction, a discussion that is too much of a literature review rather than focusing on relevance of the current study results, or overinterpreting and overgeneralizing the implications of the results of your research. In summary, this Viewpoint attempts to provide a short and simple way of thinking about how to design a research project and write an effective research report on its completion. It is not a complete dissertation on all aspects of report writing, but aims to provide guidance which will provide a framework and complement early researchers' discussions with their mentors and supervisors. Open access publishing facilitated by The University of Sydney, as part of the Wiley - The University of Sydney agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians. 1. Research project: A. Conception, B. Organization, C. Execution; 2. Statistical Analysis: A. Design, B. Execution, C. Review and Critique; 3. Manuscript Preparation: A. Writing of the first draft, B. Review and Critique. V.S.C.F.: 1A, B, C; 2 not applicable; 3A, B Ethical Compliance Statement: The author confirms that no institutional review board/patient consent was required for this work. I confirm that I have read the Journal's position on issues involved in ethical publication and affirm that this work is consistent with those guidelines. Funding Sources and Conflicts of Interest: The author was paid an honorarium by the International Parkinson Disease and Movement Disorder Society for attending the Third Movement Disorders Clinical Practice Journal Conference: Translating Good Semiology in Effective Research. Reporting and preparation of this manuscript. The author declares that there are no conflicts of interest relevant to this work. Financial Disclosures for Previous 12 Months: VF receives a salary from NSW Health, has received unrestricted research grants from the Michael J. Fox Foundation, Abbvie and Merz, and receives royalties from Health Press Ltd and Taylor and Francis Group LLC. No relevant data used.