{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016818028927009756, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005718129835183316, 'mean_word_length': 5.130927835051547, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Putting Content in the Right Place

One of the most common issues we address during content editing of papers for the Journal of Wildlife Management (Journal) is putting content in the right place. It is also one of the issues that authors are the most resistant to suggestions on or do not understand why we are so adamant about it. A primary objective of scientific writing is to accurately and concisely report information. The structure of a scientific paper is designed to help both the author and reader accomplish this objective. The material that belongs in each section of the Journal is described in our submission guidelines and generally follows standard guidelines for scientific writing (Day and Gastel 1998, Council of Science Editors 2006). The primary purpose of content editing is to bring the paper in compliance with our submission guidelines, although sometimes at this stage we have to deal with other problems that were overlooked during the review process. Here, I discuss some common problems we see in papers submitted to the Journal relative to putting content in the right sections, with the goal of helping authors write better papers for the Journal. The introduction should present information that provides the reader with adequate background to understand the importance of the study and to evaluate and understand the study. This information should include identifying the problem being addressed and briefly reviewing relevant literature to provide the reader with sufficient background on the topic. The introduction should conclude with a clear and precise statement of the objectives of the study, and if appropriate these objectives can be stated as hypotheses. Ideally, the rationale for the study hypotheses should be clear from the brief literature review in the introduction. If a more complex and lengthy rationale for hypotheses and model formulation is needed, this information is presented in the Methods section. The most common problem in the introduction is review of literature not essential to understanding the current study. Also, sometimes a summary of the methods and results are included, which can make the introduction unnecessarily long and repetitive with other sections. Sometimes, it may be appropriate to include a statement on the approach in the introduction if it is important to understanding the relevance of the study or the objectives. Although it is sometimes permissible to state the objectives in a way that indicates the primary finding of the research, authors should not provide repetitive summaries of methods, results, or conclusions. Another problem with the introduction is that sometimes authors do not put enough effort into it and do not review issues, knowledge, or current literature that would put their study in context and indicate its importance. Authors should review the introduction section of the manuscript to ensure it includes an adequate and concise review of the literature relevant to the manuscript’s main topic and a brief statement of study objectives. Other information does not belong in the introduction section. In the Study Area section most authors adequately describe relevant features of the area in which they conducted their study. Many authors, however, fail to adequately describe how the study areas, or replicate study sites, were selected. Selection processes or criteria are critical details because they affect the scope of inference of the study. If one site or sample of convenience was used, the authors should describe to what extent and why broader inferences can be extended from the study. Details of the experimental design that relate to points within sites, animals, or other samples belong in the Methods section. The Methods section should present enough information so someone competent in the field could repeat the study. Authors should not repeat details that can be cited in other references but should include enough information so someone can understand the study approach without having to look at the cited sources. Authors should present the methods in a logical order that addresses study objectives and, when possible, chronologically; results, and to some extent discussion, should then follow this same order in the respective sections. A common mistake is to not mention statistical tests until presenting results in the Results section. All statistical tests, and how they relate to the objectives or hypotheses, should be described in the Methods section. Another common mistake is inclusion of results in the Methods section; results belong in the Results section. Sometimes, the methods that were selected are dependent on intermediate results. Nevertheless, unless it results in hard-to-follow methods and unnecessarily added length, keep these intermediate results in the Results section. This partitioning of content is for the simple reason that readers expect to find methods in the Methods section and results in the Results section; you cannot assume readers are going to read your paper from front to back! An important component of the Methods section is a statement that you met any required animal use protocols. These protocols vary with authors’ affiliations or funding sources; describe how you met any requirements and report any relevant protocol or permit numbers. The Results section should be short and to the point. Common errors are describing methods or analyses or including discussion in this section. In the Results section, authors should not provide interpretation of results beyond attaching simple, arguable biological meaning to them; speculate on the causes of results; or compare results to existing literature. Tables and figures should be used where their use saves space or more clearly reports results; however, there should not be overlap in the content of texts, tables, and figures. Journal of Wildlife Management 74(5):913–914; 2010; DOI: 10.2193/2010-140