Research synopsis: structure and common mistakes

Typical structure

Most universities in India ask for these sections, in roughly this order. Your university's template takes priority.

1. Title. Specific and informative: what, in whom or what, and how.
2. Introduction and background. The problem and why it matters, in one or two pages.
3. Need for the study. The gap your work fills, supported by recent references.
4. Review of literature. Focused on studies close to your question, not a textbook summary.
5. Aim and objectives. One aim and 3 to 5 measurable objectives.
6. Hypothesis, where the design calls for one.
7. Materials and methods. Design, setting, materials or population, inclusion and exclusion criteria, sample size with its basis, procedures, outcomes and the statistical analysis plan.
8. Ethical considerations. IEC or IAEC approval needed, consent, and CTRI registration for clinical studies.
9. Timeline and budget.
10. References in the style your university requires, often Vancouver.

Mistakes that lead to revisions

• A vague title. "Study of herbal formulation" says nothing. Name the formulation, the test and the outcome.
• Objectives that cannot be measured. "To study" and "to know" are weak. Use "to formulate", "to evaluate", "to compare", with the parameter named.
• No stated research gap. The need for the study must follow from the literature, not from general importance.
• Sample size with no basis. Give the formula or software, the assumptions and the reference.
• Methods that do not match objectives. Every objective needs a method and an analysis.
• Statistics left to the end. Name the tests now; it shapes the design.
• Missing ethics plan. Animal and human studies need committee approval before work starts.
• Old or unverifiable references. Use recent, indexed sources and cite them consistently.

A quick self-check

Before you submit, read only your objectives and methods. If a reviewer could run the study from those two sections alone, your synopsis is in good shape.