Guide Rubric: Readability

We will first expand on each concept in this part of the rubric and then explore the Title and Abstract sections
of manuscripts in more depth, as well as authorship, presentation, and scientific conduct.

Readability	Writing explains key terms and concepts that may be unfamiliar to those outside a given field and can largely be understood by all professional audiences
	No grammatical errors
	Concise and focused writing style without sacrificing accessibility
	Organization reflects a cohesive progression of ideas and the abstract and title are completely consistent with the manuscript content

Writing explains key terms and concepts that may be unfamiliar to those outside a given field and can
largely be understood by all professional audiences

Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion are organized in a way that is easy to understand
All are presented effectively, the results are contextualized

No grammatical errors

No spelling, punctuation, or other grammatical errors

Concise and focused writing style without sacrificing accessibility

The text is well written and easy to follow
The vocabulary is appropriate
No redundancy in writing style

Organization reflects a cohesive progression of ideas and the abstract and title are completely consistent with the manuscript content

The title is representative of the content and breadth of the study (not misleading)
The title captures the importance of the study and the attention of the reader
The abstract overall is congruent with the textÍ¾ the abstract gives the same impression as the text
The abstract is complete (thorough); essential details are presented
The results in the abstract are presented in sufficient and specific detail
The conclusions in the abstract are justified by the information in the abstract and the text
There are no inconsistencies in detail between the abstract and the text; all of the information in the abstract is present in the text
The content is complete and fully congruent

We will now closely examine the Title and Abstract sections of a manuscript as well as the presentation of an
article.

Title

Reviewing the title and abstract are the beginning and the end of the review process. The title is the shortest
abstract. It must be indicative (describing the nature of the study) and informative (presenting the message
derived from the study results).

An example of an indicative and informative title is "Healthcare for the Uninsured National Guard: Utilizing a
Student-Run Clinic to Fill Gaps in Military Health." Contrast this with the title "Healthcare for the Uninsured National Guard" where neither the nature of the study nor the key message is evident in the title.

Abstract

An abstract of an original study should contain the following information:

Objective
Design
Setting
Participants
Interventions
Main outcome measures
Results
Conclusions

An abstract for a review article should contain the following:

Purpose
Data identification (a succinct summary of data sources)
Study selection (the number of studies chosen for the review and how they were chosen)
Data abstraction (the type of guidelines used for abstracting data and how the guidelines were applied)
Results of data synthesis (methods of data analysis and key results)
Conclusions (including potential applications and future research needs)

For a descriptive report, a narrative summary may instead be used.

Three common deficits in abstracts are these:

Inconsistencies between information in the text and abstract
Information present in the abstract but not in the text
Conclusions not justified by the information in the abstract

Presentation & Documentation

Have the authors clearly and effectively presented their data? Have they interpreted their results accurately?
Have they successfully communicated the key patterns in information to the reader?
Has the manuscript been organized according to the ICMJE Recommendations using the IMRaD format
(if applicable: Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion)?
Do the graphs and figures present information efficiently and aid in the communication of complex ideas?
How well has the author matched the level of communication to the complexity of the topic discussed?
Are there adequate references to key original articles on the topic?

Next Lesson >>

Lessons

Recommended for first time student reviewers: lessons 1 through 9
Recommended for first time faculty reviewers: lessons 1, 3, 7, 8, and 9