In Brief

• Writing is a skill and it is challenging to master it.
• The essential part of writing always stands in the hands of the scholarly article we take.
• The various portals where the scholarly article can be searched are enlisted in this article.

To all of us, the act of publications offers significant educational recognition. Still, now it not only increases the potential job prospects but also teaches an addiction to evidence-based medical practice. In general, the role of academic clinical research writing skills in manuscript preparation involves writing the file of a research study or case report, in a specific format as specified by the journal in which the writer wishes to publish. Lack of skill in these writing skills has been identified as one of the critical reasons for a weak analysis of publishing relationships in various educational institutions in India(Ray et al., 2016).

Although several reputed foreign journals affect the use of expert medical authors, they are seldom used by post-graduate students. Instructing academic writing in this scenario is growing insignificance. Given the fact that theoretical methodology was taught in the science curriculum, very few clinical academic institutes offer courses on educational writing(Barroga & Vardaman, 2015).

The process of writing and submitting a research paper for submission to a journal is a time-consuming, and often challenging activity. High-quality writing obstacles include lack of experience, bad writing habits, writing anxiety, unfamiliarity with the basics of academic writing, lack of trust in medical and scientific writing skills, concern for failure and aversion to input

Where to find scholarly articles

 

The first step is to select broad keywords that are important to your topic. These need careful consideration since they are responsible for guiding your quest for literature and influencing the content you gather to read. They have the added advantage of being used to compile and index their historical references using search engines, enabling you to access a comprehensive online record repository. You can build on these keywords later to refine the quest into detailed subheadings and allow you to organize your analysis.
Researchers and information experts searching for appropriate references for a systematic evaluation (SR) are typically recommended to search various repositories and use extra techniques to find all literature related to the subject of interest in a safe manner. For example, the Cochrane Handbook suggests using at least MEDLINE and Cochrane Central and, if appropriate, Embase for randomized controlled trial reports. The use of many databases has risks. Searchers are struggling to translate a search approach into various interfaces and search syntaxes, as the interfaces vary from area codes to proximity operators. Differences in thesaurus phrases between repositories add another significant translation burden. Furthermore, it is time-for reviewers who have to display more, and likely irrelevant, titles and abstracts. Finally, access to databases is often limited and strictly on hand on a subscription basis(Levay et al., 2015).
Previous work has studied the added expense of special topics in distinctive repositories. Some concluded that looking at only one database might be sufficient because looking at multiple databases has no impact on the outcome. Nevertheless, others also argued that a single database is not adequate for systematic evaluations to recover all references. Most papers on this topic draw their conclusions based on database coverage. A recent article sought to find a suitable variety to read to incorporate an extra database; unfortunately, however, there could be no definite conclusion.
Nevertheless, whether an object is present in a database or not, a search in that database may not turn it into being determined. Regardless of this principal limitation, the problem remains unanswered as to which repositories are required for a thorough evaluation to obtain all relevant references. We are therefore investigating the probability that single or more than a few combinations of databases will retrieve the essential references in a systematic evaluation by testing correct retrieval in a variety of databases(Hartling et al., 2016).

Other sites to look for

Browzine Library

Peer-reviewed articles from your mobile device or computer search, read and organize scholarly articles.

 

JSTOR

JSTOR’s (Journal Storage) collections contain scholarships published in more than one thousand high-quality scholarly journals in the arts, social sciences, and sciences.

 

ScienceDirect

ScienceDirect provides free full-text access to more than 4500 Elsevier journals and ebooks. The Backfiles software offers the opportunity to scan for an archive of over 6.75 million papers in history. A compilation of newspapers is a core component of Healey Library’s collection of online academic journals.

 

Web of Science

The Arts & Humanities Citation Index, the Science Citation Index, and the Social Sciences Citation Index are available on the Web of Science.   One knowledge resource is searchable online reference databases such as MalaCards, the human condition database that incorporates a variety of scientific data with clinical trial knowledge, genetic disorder bases, and experimental sources from other reference databases, as well as reported studies. One knowledge resource is searchable online reference databases such as MalaCards, the human condition database that incorporates a variety of scientific data with clinical trial knowledge, genetic disorder bases, and experimental sources from other reference databases, as well as reported studies(Rossiter, 2016).

References:

1. Barroga, E., & Vardaman, M. Essential components of educational programs on biomedical writing, editing, and publishing. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 30 10, (2015), pp. 1381–1387. https://synapse.koreamed.org/search.php?where=aview&id=10.3346/jkms.2015.30.10.1381&code=0063JKMS&vmode=FULL


2. Hartling, L., Featherstone, R., Nuspl, M., Shave, K., Dryden, D. M., & Vandermeer, B. The contribution of databases to the results of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 16 1, (2016), pp. 127. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12874-016-0232-1


3. Levay, P., Raynor, M., & Tuvey, D. The contributions of MEDLINE, other bibliographic databases and various search techniques to NICE public health guidance. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 10 1, (2015), pp. 50–68. https://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/23248


4. Ray, S., Shah, I., & Nundy, S. The research output from Indian medical institutions between 2005 and 2014. Current Medicine Research and Practice, 6 2, (2016), pp. 49–58. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235208171630037X


5. Rossiter, P. Europe PMC : Quick tour What is Europe PMC ? What can I do with Europe PMC ? What can I do with Europe PMC ? pp. 1–11. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/675f/757b95443efd2ab46e190d3f6436fe008799.pdf