Good scientific writing requires good science and good writing. Unfortunately, the last time most of us were asked to think about the mechanics of writing was in grade school. As a result, many of us have forgotten the rules of grammar, the weakness of the passive voice, and the need for topic sentences and transitional phrases in the construction of a paragraph. In addition, few of us have been taught to write a scientific manuscript. Instead, we learn by emulating available (and sometimes imperfect) literature and by the slow and often painful process of writing and publishing our work. Furthermore, of the many texts and articles about scientific writing, few deal in practical terms with the form and content of biomedical research papers. Thus, when planning to publish our research results, we can be faced with a series of questions. What should be included in the Introduction? How much literature should be reviewed? How many reference citations are too many? What order should be followed and what tense should be used in the Materials and Methods section? How should figures be cited in the Results section? How should the Discussion be organized? What constitutes a good title? What should be covered in the summary?
When an article is being written for a particular journal, especially one like the Journal of Orthopaedic Research that has two editorial offices, questions of format and style can be even more confusing. If different editors expect different editorial style, published manuscripts may exhibit stylistic differences that further confuse authors trying to model their papers on recent issues of the journal. The consequence is all too often the submission of manuscripts that do not conform to a particular editorial vision, even if they reflect good science and writing. This can result in author frustration, delays in resubmissions, and extra cycles of review. Moreover, especially with first-time authors, the editors must write editorial decision letters that