1. Conducting a Literature Review

A rigorous literature review is the backbone of every research project. It defines what is known, identifies gaps, and justifies your study — yet it is frequently done poorly.

Getting Started

• Define first, search second: Define your topic clearly and precisely before searching. A broad question leads to an unmanageable volume of literature; a narrow question may miss important context.
• Frame your four questions: Ask four key questions: What do I already know? What gaps exist? What is controversial? What still needs studying? These guide your search strategy and eventual write-up.

• Search multiple databases: Use multiple databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, Web of Science, Google Scholar) and do not rely on a single source.How to search PubMed: A Ready Reckoner for ...

• Document your search strategy: Record your search strategy (databases used, keywords, date range, filters applied) so it can be reported and reproduced.

Selecting & Organising Literature

• Apply consistent criteria: Apply inclusion and exclusion criteria consistently. Document why papers were included or excluded.
• Use reference management software: Use reference management software (Endnote, Zotero, RefWorks) from day one to organise, store, and cite your references. ReadMendeley Reference Manager: A Step-by-step Guide,Zotero: A Quick Start Guide
• Always read the full paper: Read full papers, not just abstracts. Findings and conclusions reported in abstracts are frequently oversimplified or even misleading.
• Trace claims to primary sources: Do not cite a conclusion from a Cochrane review or meta-analysis without checking whether the primary studies are relevant to your population and context.

Writing the Review

• Synthesise, do not summarise: A literature review is not a list of summaries. It is a critical synthesis that builds an argument, organise by theme, not by author or publication date.
• Map the landscape: Clearly identify what is known, what is debated, and what is unknown. This structure naturally leads to your research question.
• Present conflicting evidence fairly: Acknowledge conflicting evidence. Presenting only papers that support your position undermines the credibility of your review.
• Write clearly and precisely: Keep jargon to a minimum and use accurate terminology throughout. Referencing should be accurate and consistent.
• Stay anchored to your question: A focused research question is essential before you can evaluate whether your review is complete. Keep returning to your question as a compass.

2. Critically Appraising Research

Not all published research is of equal quality. Critical appraisal is the systematic evaluation of a study's strengths and limitations to determine its credibility and applicability.

Core Principles

• Evaluate fairly: Critiquing is not the same as criticising. A critique objectively evaluates both strengths and weaknesses — it is the creation, not the creator, that is being evaluated.
• Stay objective: Maintain objectivity throughout. Avoid personal opinions; support all evaluative statements with reference to research texts or other published evidence.
• Acknowledge probability: Research works within the realm of probability. Always refer to "apparent strengths and limitations" rather than absolute conclusions.

What to Appraise: Four Domains of Thesis Writing

• Clarity: Are the aims, methods, and questions clearly stated and appropriate?
• Validity: Is the study design appropriate for the question? Is it free from major sources of bias? Was it conducted ethically?
• Reliability: Could this study be repeated and yield similar results? Is the data collection and statistical analysis sound?
• Applicability: Are the findings relevant, helpful, and applicable to your context? Do the benefits outweigh the potential harms?

Common Appraisal Questions

• Is a worthwhile problem or question clearly identified?
• Is the chosen methodology appropriate and justified for the research question?
• Are eligibility criteria and sampling methods clearly described?
• Are the statistical tests appropriate for the data type and study design?
• Are limitations acknowledged, and are conclusions proportionate to the data?
• Does this study add something new to existing knowledge, or has it been done before — and better — elsewhere?

3. Citations & Reference Integrity

Citations are the building bricks of science communication. Inaccurate or unethical citations undermine the integrity of your work and the scientific record. First, learn using a reference manager

Citing Correctly

• Go to the source: Always cite primary sources. Do not cite a secondary source's account of a primary study without verifying the original.
• Read before you cite: Read, understand, and accurately represent the main points of every paper you cite. Citing a paper you have not read is unethical.
• Cite purposefully: Cite only references that are directly relevant to your argument. Excessive or irrelevant citations dilute the quality of your reference list.
• Use current references: Keep references current. Reviewers check the timelines of references to judge the novelty and currency of your manuscript.
• Validate every reference: Verify every reference for accuracy — author names, journal title, volume, page numbers, and DOI. A single incorrect reference reduces credibility.

Avoiding Citation Malpractice

• Avoid citation stuffing: Do not engage in "citation stuffing" — adding references merely to inflate numbers or appease likely reviewers.
• Do not cherry-pick citations: Do not cite papers that contradict your argument without acknowledging the contradiction. Selective citation is a form of bias.

4. Avoiding Plagiarism

Plagiarism is the use of another's ideas, words, or intellectual property without attribution — whether intentional or not. It is considered serious scientific misconduct with potentially career-ending consequences.

Understanding the Forms

• Verbatim / copy-paste: Verbatim plagiarism: Copying text word-for-word without quotation marks and attribution — the most obvious form.
• Mosaic plagiarism: Mosaic plagiarism: Paraphrasing closely by rearranging or substituting a few words from a source without attribution — harder to detect but equally unethical.
• Idea plagiarism: Idea plagiarism: Presenting another person's concept, theory, or original idea as your own, even if entirely reworded.

Practical Prevention Strategies

• Write from memory, then verify: After reading a source, close it and write your understanding in your own words from memory. Then check your version against the source.
• Quote marks for direct text: When you do use exact words from a source, enclose them in quotation marks and provide a citation — even a single distinctive phrase requires this.
• Use detection software proactively: Run your manuscript through plagiarism detection software (e.g., iThenticate, Turnitin) before submission. Most journals do this anyway — better you find it first.
• Keep meticulous notes: Keep detailed notes during your literature review, including the source for every idea or phrase you record.
• When in doubt, cite: When in doubt, cite. It is always safer to over-cite than to be accused of plagiarism.

5. Writing Research Thesis

Writing up is where many students stall — planning and structure are the antidotes.

Understanding What a Thesis Must Do

• Document the journey: Report each stage of the research process clearly and transparently.
• Establish the context: Provide a comprehensive description of what is known in and around your field of inquiry.
• Justify every decision: Describe in detail each methodological decision and justify why it was the best approach for your question.
• Acknowledge problems: Discuss honestly any problems, limitations, or unexpected findings that arose.
• Point to the future: Outline where and how future research can build on your work.

Practical Writing Tips

• Start early and write continuously: Start writing early — even rough notes and outlines count. The thesis is written in stages, not in one sitting.
• Write sections iteratively: Write in sections. Do not wait until all data collection is complete before writing the introduction or methods chapter.
• Use your supervisors actively: Seek expert guidance and supervision throughout. Do not isolate yourself — get feedback at every stage.
• Maintain a logical thread: Present a logical argument (the "main thesis") that runs like a thread through every chapter. The examiner should be able to follow this argument without losing the thread.
• Write to the examiner's questions: Know what examiners look for and write to those expectations: a worthwhile question, appropriate methodology, critical use of literature, and honest findings.

References:

• Cronin P, Ryan F, Coughlan M. Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach. Br J Nursing 2008;17(1).
• Coughlan M, Cronin P, Ryan F. Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: quantitative research. Br J Nursing 2007.
• Hardy M et al. Reflections on how to write and organise a research thesis. Nurse Researcher 2005;13(2):27.
• Clancy K. Experiences of a novice researcher. Nurse Researcher 2007;14(4):27.
• Gasparyan AY et al. Preserving the integrity of citations and references by all stakeholders of science communication. J Korean Med Sci 2015;30:1545–1552.
• Wiseman JT, Alavi K, Milner RJ. Grant writing 101. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 2013;26:228–231.
• Mohan Kumar P et al. Knowing and avoiding plagiarism during scientific writing. Ann Med Health Sci Res 2014;4(S3):193.
• Mohan M et al. Rising from plagiarising. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2015;14(3):538–540.
• Tomaska L. Teaching how to prepare a manuscript by means of rewriting published scientific papers. Genetics 2007;175:17–20.
• Marusic A, Marusic M. Teaching students how to read and write science. Acad Med 2003;78:1235–1239.
• Shah J. An author's guide to submission, revision and rejection. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2015;97:546–548.
• Sandercock P. Negative results: why do they need to be published? Int J Stroke 2012.
• Bordage G. Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports. Acad Med 2001.
• Yun J, Kim P-J, Jeong H. Anatomy of scientific evolution. PLoS ONE 2015;10(2):e0117388.
• Pierson DJ. The top 10 reasons why manuscripts are not accepted for publication. Respir Care 2004;49(10):1246–1252.