• Home
  • About
  • Join ELB
    • Become an Interim Board Member
  • Events
  • Podcast
  • Blog
  • Mentorship
    • Meet Our Mentors
    • Mentorship Overview
  • Contact
  • Home
  • About
  • Join ELB
    • Become an Interim Board Member
  • Events
  • Podcast
  • Blog
  • Mentorship
    • Meet Our Mentors
    • Mentorship Overview
  • Contact

Storytelling is the most powerful way to put ideas into the world - Robert McKee

Manuscript writing for beginners

1/23/2022

0 Comments

 
by Natasha Barlow

In my last post, I briefly discussed a high-level summary of how I approach analyzing ecological field data. In this post, I will be discussing the method I use to write manuscripts. I should start by saying that when I refer to a ‘manuscript’, I am talking about the written document that you submit to a Journal (e.g., Journal of Wildlife Management) for consideration for publication. My experience is in avian (bird) ecology, conservation, and applied management, which is what I will be discussing in this article.
 
Manuscript
 
You have finished your analysis and it has pumped out some numbers (do not worry, it took me a long time to understand what my numbers meant and many, many, hours of making sure they were ‘correct’). Now what? The format I use to write is:

Methods > Figures/Tables > Results > Introduction > Discussion > Abstract

1. Methods. I find this the easiest section to write and complete first. Since you just finished your analysis, it can be useful to write your methods immediately afterwards as the steps you took to get to the results are fresh in your mind. It is also useful to comment your script/code in R/RStudio throughout because you will undoubtedly go back to it in the future and you might have forgotten why you made some decisions that you made. I format my methods in this general way: field methods > justifying collection of variables > modeling approach used (#2 in the previous blog post) > transformations (#5 in the previous blog post; e.g., standardization) > variable selection (#6 and #7 in the previous blog post) > model selection (#8 in the previous blog post).

2. Figures and Tables. Determine how you want your readers to see your data and think hard about the best ways to show them your data in an easy to digest format. For example, would you rather look at the table, or the figure (or neither…) below? We decided to only include the figure in this article upon reviewer request because they essentially show the same thing, but the figure is nicer to look at. However, tables can also be useful. Without explaining the table and figure too much, anything above the horizontal dotted line in the figure you can think of as a bird preferring that variable in areas where it nests, and anything under the line is avoidance (don’t quote me; that’s not a great explanation). Clear as mud? The table is a bit more confusing though, and doesn’t add much to the story - so we removed it.
Picture
Picture
3. Results. You generally want the flow of your results to be chronological with the flow of your methods. This can be tricky, but I will use this article again as an example. In my methods section, I first mentioned the sampling for nest site selection of one bird species, and then the sampling to compare the preferences in nest site selection of two species. My results would follow a similar order, first showing the results of the one species nest site selection, and then the comparison between species.

4. Introduction. I am not a fan of writing introductions, but I find it useful to use the ‘snowball’ technique. That is, when you are searching through the literature, you will find that individuals reference others. It can be incredibly useful to look at the articles that are referenced, go to those articles, read them, and look at the other ones that are referenced, and continue. This is primarily how I completed many of my literature reviews. There are so many different formats you can use for introductions so I will not include a suggestion here. However, things that I find useful are when an article sets up the scope of the research within relevant and broad topics, discusses the limitations of the current knowledge, the gaps in the research that need to be filled, why your response variable matters, why your study site matters, and what specifically was your objective. 

5. Discussion. Typically, the format follows the order of your results. Is what you found similar or different to what has been discussed in literature? Why do you suspect your results turned out this way? It is our job to untangle the ‘complex story’ of our work into something understandable. If nothing has been done on this topic in the past, use other research to fuel your hypotheses. It is also fine to discuss the limitations in your own research and the need for future work. In my work, we also bring the discussion back to wildlife management — or the bigger picture -- without trying to go beyond the scope of our data/region. Essentially, why does your research matter?

6. Abstract. Try to make your first sentence a clear, pointed start to the manuscript that addresses the topic. You also want, within the first sentence or two, to discuss the problem statement, or gap in the research that you are filling. I then follow up with a bit more introduction and specifically what I did and how I found my answer (what method I used). I then have a brief discussion of the main results I want to convey, and the resulting management implications.
**
After all of the blood, sweat, and tears (“Nae pi ttam nunmul”…), you may submit your manuscript and it might get rejected. It sucks, but it happens all the time. My advisor reminded me that reviewers attack ideas, and your ideas are not your entirety as a person. Ideas can be changed. You can take what the reviewers say, correct any flaws, re-submit, or even try submitting to another journal. Your work is important, and the effort you do is not in vain!
About the Author

Natasha L. Barlow (B.Sc, M.E.S), is a Boreal Conservation Project Specialist at Birds Canada. Her master’s research was focused on evaluating the umbrella species concept of the greater sage-grouse, at fine-spatial scales for nesting Brewer’s sparrows (Spizella breweri), as well as the influence of landscape-scale habitat reclamation on songbird abundance. She is interested in evidence-based approaches that focus on the complex realm of human-natural resource interactions that also work to rectify the disconnect between the public and scientists in regard to wildlife conservation. Connect with her on Instagram (@natashalbarlow) or Twitter (@nlynnbarlow) to chat about research, or to join her birding. ​
Picture
0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    ELB Members

    Blogs are written by ELB members who want to share their stories about Ontario's biodiversity.

    Interested in sharing your story?
    ​Contact el4biodiversity@gmail.com.

    Archives

    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    August 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    April 2018
    February 2018
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016

    Categories

    All
    Amphibian
    Bats
    Biodiversity
    Butterflies
    Conservation
    COP13
    Fish
    Forests
    Invasive Species
    Lakes
    Land Conservation
    Plastic Free
    Research
    Winter Wildlife
    World Water Day
    Zero Waste

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly