Good research is not enough – it must also be understood

Getting a scientific article published is just the first step. For research to have any impact, someone has to read it, understand it, trust the results, and use the knowledge. That was the main message when Professor and Journal Editor Michael Bretthauer met with the researchers in REMEDY, when WP1 invited them to a seminar. 

How do you write a good scientific article – and how do you increase the chance that it will actually be read? 

Michael Bretthauer drew on his experiences as a researcher and editor when he gave a presentation at the professional seminar in working group 1 of REMEDY. 

Bretthauer is a professor at the University of Oslo and a consultant at Oslo University Hospital. He is also an editor of the Annals of Internal Medicine. 

His message was clear: It's not enough that the research is good. It must also be communicated well. 

Publishing is just the beginning 

Bretthauer started by asking why researchers publish. Among the answers was the desire for better treatment and diagnostics for patients. 

But a published article does not automatically lead to better practice. First, someone has to read it. The reader must understand what the researchers have done, have confidence in the results, and be able to use the knowledge. With more than 20,000 medical journals, it is also not a given that a published article will be read.  

As editor, Bretthauer asks three questions in particular: 

Is it new? Is it true? And is it interesting? 

The latter is not about how interesting the researcher himself finds the project, he emphasized. The question is whether it is interesting to the journal's readers.  

The first article must also hold 

This places demands on both young researchers and their supervisors. 

“The first article you publish should be as good as the last one you write,” said Bretthauer. 

The reader should be able to trust the results regardless of whether the article is written by an experienced professor or a PhD student writing their first article. Therefore, supervisors have a responsibility to help younger researchers achieve the necessary quality.  

For Bretthauer, this is also about what the research can lead to. If the results can affect diagnostics or treatment of patients, precision in communication has real consequences. 

The editor doesn't take long to understand you 

One manuscript competes for attention with many others. Bretthauer said he can receive three to four new manuscripts for review every day. 

If he doesn't understand an abstract, he doesn't necessarily contact the author to ask what he meant. 

The manuscript may be rejected. 

Large journals have extensive editorial processes. Many people review a manuscript before it is eventually published. Some problems can be corrected in a revision. Others are what editors call “fatal flaws” – weaknesses that cannot be fixed. But many small problems can also collectively cause the editors to choose another manuscript.  

The research can be creative – the text shouldn't be 

Bretthauer encouraged the researchers to make the language as simple and precise as possible. 

"Research is creative, but writing is not creative." 

A scientific article has a structure that the reader is familiar with. Results should be where the reader expects to find them. The same applies to methods and discussion. 

Long and complicated sentences are also not a sign of scientific quality. Bretthauer recommended, among other things, active language, few unnecessary abbreviations and technical terms, and fewer adjectives.  

A good figure can make all the difference 

Bretthauer used the 1986 Challenger disaster as a dramatic example of the importance of good data visualization. Engineers had information about the connection between cold and problems with the space shuttle's sealing rings, but the data was presented in a way that made the connection difficult to understand.  

For researchers, the lesson is that a figure should not primarily contain as much information as possible. It should make the main message easy to see. 

Bretthauer said his research group sometimes spends weeks developing a single figure. Unnecessary data is removed, the order is changed, and the presentation is tested until the message becomes clear. 

His advice was simple: 

– Use a figure if you can. Use a table if you have to.  

Think about the reader before choosing a journal 

Choosing a journal is also about communication. Researchers should ask who actually needs the knowledge. 

A study that is primarily important to Norwegian doctors or authorities may have the greatest significance in a Norwegian journal. Other results should reach an international audience.  

Bretthauer also encouraged researchers to consider contacting relevant journals before submitting. A pre-submission inquiry can provide an indication of whether the editors are interested. A cover letter, on the other hand, should be very brief and only highlight information that the editor does not already find in the manuscript.  

Ultimately, the advice centered around one question: What does the reader need to understand what you have found? 

Because publication is not the end point. For research to have a meaning for patients, the knowledge must be read, understood and used. 

Bretthauer's advice to researchers