This section should provide enough details to allow suitably skilled investigators to fully replicate your study. It should include the design of the study, the setting, the type of participants or materials involved, a clear description of all interventions and comparisons, and the type of analysis used, including a power calculation, if appropriate. Only truly new procedures should be described in detail; previously published procedures should be referenced.
The following are some special points:. Include the rationale or design of the experiments as well as the results; reserve interpretation of the results for the discussion section. Present the results as concisely as possible. Do not repeat verbatim in the text results that are given in tables or figures. The discussion should explain how the results relate to the hypothesis presented as the basis of the study, and provide a succinct explanation of the implications of the findings, particularly in relation to previous related studies and potential future directions for research. The concluding statement s should state clearly the main conclusions of the research and give a clear explanation of their importance and relevance.
The conclusion s should relate to the objective s of the study. Summary illustrations may be included. The Results and Discussion may be combined into a single section or presented separately. These sections may be further divided into subsections, each with a concise subheading, as appropriate. The sections have no word limit, but the language should be clear and concise. Acknowledge anyone who contributed towards the article by making substantial contributions to conception, design, acquisition of data or materials essential for the study; analysis and interpretation of data; or involvement in drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content, but who does not meet the criteria for authorship.
The Manuscript Dr – Better Writers – Better Manuscripts
The source of any financial support received for the work being published must be specified. Authors must describe the role of the funding body, if any, in 1 the study design; 2 the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; 3 the writing of the manuscript; and 4 the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. If a scientific medical writer has made significant revision of the manuscript, we recommend that you acknowledge the editor by name, where possible.
Acknowledgements should be included in a separate headed section before the references section. Permission should be obtained from all those who are acknowledged in this section. All individuals involved with a manuscript, including authors, academic editors, reviewers, and commenters must declare all potential competing interests. For further information, see here. References are to be listed and numbered consecutively in the order of appearance in the text, tables, or legends, using Arabic numerals.
In the text, citations should be indicated by the reference number in parentheses. Only published or accepted manuscripts should be included in the reference list. In-press articles cited within the references should be made available if requested by the editorial office. Here are some examples:.
(Please Scroll Up)
Louis University, a case study in using IIIF -compliant images in the Mirador shared-canvas viewer to digitally reconstruct dismembered manuscripts. More on Fragmentarium here. Stay tuned! Riccardo Strobino at Tufts University. Leaves of this manuscript are no. These portfolios are numerous, and Gwara identifies several dozen locations Gwara, pp. Fragmentarium allows for right-left directional reading in reconstructions, by the way, making it an excellent interface for such a project.
In the meantime, follow fragmentology and OttoEge on Twitter to stay on top of breaking fragmentology news! Ege , Uncategorized. I am not a linguist, cryptologist, or conspiracy-theorist. I am particularly interested in Pre manuscripts in North American collections, an intersection in which the Voynich Manuscript at the Beinecke Library solidly stands].
Meeting at the University of Pennsylvania is a homecoming of sorts for me, since my first job after completing my PhD was in the Rare Book Room at the Van Pelt Library, where I was hired to catalogue medieval and Renaissance manuscripts. This part of the story begins back in , when Wilfrid Voynich purchased the manuscript from the Jesuits at Villa Mondragone near Rome.
Upon his return to the United States, he began promoting his mysterious acquisition, boasting to friends and colleagues about the book no one could read. Cryptologists, linguists, and statisticians were intrigued, and several came to study the manuscript in hopes of solving the puzzle. The most intrepid of these was William Romaine Newbold , a professor of Latin and Philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania.
Newbold died before completing his study, but in his friend and colleague Roland Grubb Kent edited his work and published it posthumously under the title The Cipher of Roger Bacon. The Cipher of Roger Bacon is, quite frankly, a terrible piece of research. Presented as a formal and detailed linguistic and historical analysis, his logic is flawed and circular and his historical discussions are often not only bizarre but also anachronistic.
There is absolutely no material forensic evidence to support this theory, which Newbold bases not only on his own microscopic investigations but on a lengthy and equally improbable argument claiming that Bacon had the knowledge, skill, and equipment to create a powerful microscope. He also used his method to interpret several of the illustrations in the biological section of the manuscript. Montrose J.
That task was taken up quite effectively in the issue of Speculum , the renowned journal of Medieval Studies published, in fact, by the very same Medieval Academy of America of which I am Executive Director. Why are there two connected uteri? The plates themselves are not particularly interesting, but I did find something else.
Turns out they have a copy in the rare book room RBR itself, so I could easily compare them side-by-side. Unfortunately, that comparison was not very enlightening. But I did find another something-else. Friedman , and, early Voynichologists all, they had been quite critical of Newbold at one point or another. The margins are full of rather snarky comments alongside detailed criticisms of the argument, methodology, and results.
Confronted with a manuscript, which, though obviously interesting and important for the history of science, had baffled experts of the twentieth century as it had those of the sixteenth and seventeenth, he refused to admit that it could not be read. Eight months he labored before he obtained what he regarded as the first verification of his theories; and eight years — the whole remainder, indeed, of his all too brief life — he devoted with feverish energy to the application of them…He was of the stuff of which heroes and martyrs are made.
Both critics justifiably accuse Newbold of the same flaws in methodology that afflict many would-be Voynich-solvers today: wishful thinking and inverted logic.
Filed under Medieval Manuscripts , Uncategorized. Most of the time, this road trip is virtual, an exploration of digitized manuscripts and their associated metadata and platforms in collections throughout North America. But sometimes I take an actual road trip, visiting medievalists at institutions and heritage sites far from my home in Boston to study their manuscripts in the flesh, as it were.
Preparing manuscript text
Last week was one of those times. I spent two delightful days in Canada, visiting the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon and collection in a small private school three hours from there. These are among the northernmost pre European manuscripts in North America and, in the case of the school, some of the most remote.
- The Rules of Tech Support!
- Psicologia del Suicidio (Italian Edition);
- Adas Rules!
- Slavery in Early Christianity.
- Reefer Madness: ... and Other Tales from the American Underground?
- Somewhere in the South Pacific (One Mans War Journey Book 2).
- Manuscript transfer frequently asked questions.
Saskatchewan is the prairie of Canada, much like my home state of Oklahoma. Flat, big sky, beautiful serene scenery, windy, with glorious sunsets. I was invited to Saskatchewan by Prof. Liu discussing Ege leaves with University of Saskatchewan students. It was a great joy for me to have the opportunity to speak to the students about Otto Ege and his impact on the American market in single leaves in the first half of the twentieth century if Ege is new to you, you can read about him in several of my blogposts. Saskatchewan students getting to know the Voynich Manuscript.
An added and unexpected treat! After the class, I had lunch with a group of faculty and students, mostly from the English department, many of whom were working with Profs. Hundreds of students have worked on the transcriptions over the years as the project has migrated through various formats.