If you want to longer, more comprehensive reference, I recommend Mimi Zeiger's textbook, the Essentials of Writing Biomedical Research Papers. And I've actually had several students come back to me after taking my course and say, that they started noticing this association between the presences of all the grid lines and poor quality papers. The authors could have just added a star somewhere on the line graph to indicate that the red group differed from the other three based on the statistical test that compares the trajectories over time.

Once you've got a nice complete set of tables and figures that tell a good story, then it's time to write the results section. I've presented the table that I showed in module one with our hypothetical data, alongside a mock results section that is similar to what I see from a lot of students. One thing I commonly see is that authors spend a lot of time justifying and explaining their statistical approach within the results section.

So I changed it to 70% of runners ran during pregnancy, and then I'm just giving the total end in the parenthesis, so that we can avoid repeating the 77 in the second sentence. So I paired all of this down to on average those who ran during pregnancy greatly curtailed their training that setting up both of those pieces, the mileage and the intensity, and then dash, running just 20.3 plus or minus 9.3 miles per week. And actually I want to make that waited two or fewer weeks, To resume running, to highlight the fact that I thought that was a small amount.

Another way to make life easy for your readers is to use flow diagrams or tables, to help simplify the explanation of methods. Just to give you a little background, I like many scientists get multiple emails a day requesting that I submit a paper to some journal or attend some conference. With the support of editorial board members and organizing committee, we would like welcome you, you can see that it's grammatically incorrect on that one, we wish if you could join as a keynote speaker in this grand event.

Unsolicited and unwanted (spam) electronic invitations to speak at or attend conferences or to write for or edit journals are a burgeoning aspect of academic life. So they say, we conducted a prospective in this investigation, in a large cohort of U.S. men and women to determine their relations between body mass index and the risk of death from cancer at specific sites. So they've already told you how they're filling in some of the gaps-- it's prospective, it's large, it's a trusted data set they tell us in the next sentence and they're looking at BMI rather than an arbitrary cut off for obesity or overweight.

And in the third paragraph, However, no research has systematically examined the content of the medical information provided on these talk shows. They tell us why this matters, we need some background on that to explain that citations counts are an important part of promotion in an academic career. And so if men are self-promoting more effectively than women, perhaps that contributes to the gender disparity we see in faculty hiring and promotion.

Nobel and prestigious colleagues, we are enthralled by prospect to notice the grammar, of novel research focus of academic spam, so we make a proposition to improve enlightenment of evidence. Also, there was a high drop out rate which means the diet is hard to stick to, So based on all that, they end with a take home message to physicians. I'll remind you that what was at the end of their introduction section, their goals were to compare the number of self-citations in men versus women and they also wanted to look a serve of secondary aim to trends in this gender gap over time.

I'm often scanning abstracts for articles to write about for the lay public, and I need to quickly discern the real world relevance of that research. The aim of the study was to assess the amount, relevance, content, and suppressibility of academic spam invitations to attend conferences, or submit manuscripts. And then we get a big pictured conclusion, academic spam is common, repetitive, often irrelevant and difficult to avoid or prevent.

So in this first paragraph, last sentence, "In a landmark study, published in the journal Plant Cell, Tanaka and colleagues recently uncovered an additional role for ROS as regulators of symbiosis. So I'm not going to do any rearranging of sentences or paragraphs in this essay, I'm mostly going to focus on a little nip and tuck, kind of few spots where we can take out some unnecessary details and trim some extra words. And then, finally, I feel like we need to add a little tiny paragraph at the end here, just to provide a nice conclusion to wrap back to the beginning.