How to write a Scientific Article

Hythm Shibl – Managing Editor/KSU titles

Two sides to every brain…I am the left brain. I am a scientist. A mathematician. I love the familiar, the constant. I categorise. I am logical, linear, analytical, strategic, practical, realistic and always in control. I know exactly who I am.

I am the right brain. I am creativity. A free spirit. I am passion, yearning for change. I am movement and vivid colours. I am boundless imagination in the form of art and poetry. I sense. I feel. I am everything I want to be.

Adapted from a Mercedes-Benz Advert

Reading and understandin

gWriting and creativity

Be more creative…

What do authors want?

To be published as quickly as possible

To be recognized for their effort and hard workTo network with other researchers who will collaborate on more researchTo contribute to science

Promotion and tenure

Why is reading so important?Are the most appropriate research questions being asked?• Are the most appropriate methods used to answer these questions?• Are the results interpreted appropriately?• Is the most relevant research being cited?

• Keeping up with advances related to your research• Staying broadly educated about the field

• Transitioning into a new research area

Helps you find suitable journals to target• Reviewing papers for conferences/journals• Giving colleagues feedback on their papers

The more you read, the better your writing style

Effective reading strategies

Reading strategies: journal articles

Read Title and Abstract first• Self-assess knowledge of the topic

Read Results• Go through the tables and figures

Read Discussion for interpretation

Refer to Introduction and Methods only when necessary

Reading strategies: books

Read the Table of

Contents and Preface

• Self-assess knowledge of the topic

• Know what your looking for

Skim through the table and

figure captions

• Refer to the tables and figures

• Use the index to find specific details

Read through results and discussions

that are interesting

• Read through the appendices and other supplementary material

Networking for collaboration

Who is your neighbour in this audience?Be active at conferencesMake use of social media• LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook etc…

Use academic social network tools• mendeley.com, researchgate.net, academia.edu,

gaudeamusacademia.com etc…

Practical tips…

Find out what’s Hot• http://info.scopus.com/topcited/• http://top25.sciencedirect.com/• http://www.scitopics.com/• Scan papers in latest conference proceedings • What interests you? What keeps you dreaming?

Find the subject trends• Journals, authors, publications per year (Scopus)• Search tips (including alerts)

…on finding…

Evaluate which journal is right for your article

• Impact Factor• Subject Specific Impact Factor

(http://tinyurl.com/scopusimpact)• SCImago Journal & Country Ranking

(http://scimagojr.com/)• Journal Analyzer• h-Index of other authors• Ask yourself “Where will my article have the greatest

impact?”• If possible, submit to a “niche” or special interest journal

…a target journal

Find out more about the journals• Who are the editors?• Read the guide for authors• Who tends to read these journals?

• Where are they from? Which articles are frequently downloaded and cited?

• Read several issues of the journals that you are considering

• Go to conferences

Journal metrics overview

Journal citation data and bibliometrics can be used to measure the impact or influence of articles, authors and journals• Impact Factor• h-index• SCImago Journal Rank• Usage• Eigenfactor

What does having impact factor mean?

Impact Factor (IF)[the average annual number of citations per article

published] For example, the 2013 impact factor for a journal would be calculated as

follows:◦ A = the number of times articles published in 2011 and 2012 were

cited in indexed journals during 2013◦ B = the number of "citable items" (usually articles, reviews,

proceedings or notes; not editorials and letters-to-the-Editor) published in 2011 and 2012

◦ 2013 impact factor = A/B ◦ e.g. 600 citations = 2

150 + 150 articles

What about the h-index?

Where you publish affects your future citations…

"It is better to publish one paper in a quality journal than multiple papers in lesser journals. Try to publish in journals that have high impact factors; chances are your paper will have high impact, too, if accepted.” Bourne, P. E. (2005). Ten Simple Rules for Getting Published.

PLoS Computational Biology 1(5): e57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010057

"Where you publish is the primary determinant of how many citations your work will receive in the future.” Peng, T.-Q. & J.J.H. Zhu (2012). Where you publish

matters most: A multilevel analysis of factors affecting citations of internet studies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(9): 1789-1803 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.22649

Which factor is the most important?

Aims and Scope

Publishing frequency

Impact factor

Target audience

Open access? Prestige

Cost Publication type

Open Access

Gold Open Access◦ Immediate access the Version of

Record (VoR) of a publication via the publishers platform in exchange for payment of a Article Publication Charge (APC); usually free of many conventional licensing and copyright restrictions

Green Open Access◦ Access without payment to a version of

the publication (not VoR) via a repository, often after an embargo period

Predatory journals

Antarctica Journal of Mathematics?!

Fake editorial boards (are they credible scientists?)

Very quick/consistent period from submission to acceptance (no time for revision!)

No language editing/poor English

Very low quality articles

Charge an exorbitant APC

Some falsely claim that they have an IF

When to choose a target journal?

Results • The experiment is complete• No new results are coming

Factors• Evaluated all the relevant factors• Honestly assessed the planned article and the

potential journals to target

Writing

• Have written the methods and results• What is the message? Who will read it?• How significant are the results?

Evaluating significance: importance

Interest• Specific or general audience?

Existing theory • Supporting or contradicting?

Practicalities• Substantially improve understanding?• New technology or disease treatment?

Evaluating significance: novelty

Conceptual advances

• Medium to high IF

Incremental advances

• Low to medium IF

New findings

Evaluating significance: relevance

• Possible implications to other regions and wider populations?

Relevant to a specific area or population?

• First of their kind• International significance

Journals with high IF will consider specific findings

Evaluating significance: appeal

Will my research question appeal to the general public?• Optogenetics• Epigenetics• Stem cell research• Higgs boson• Global warming• Clean tech

Reasons for rejection

Lack of originality, novelty, or significanceMismatch with the journal

Flaws in study design

Poor Writing and Organization

Inadequate preparation of the manuscript

Other reasons

Lack of originality, novelty or significance

Results that are not generalizable

Use of methods that have become obsolete because of new technologies or techniques

Secondary analyses that extend or replicate published findings without adding substantial knowledge

Studies that report already known knowledge but positions the knowledge as novel by extending it to a new geography, population or cultural settingResults that are unoriginal, predictable or trivial

Results that have no clinical, theoretical or practical implications

Mismatch with the journal

Findings that are of interest to a very narrow or specialized audience that the journal does not cater to specificallyManuscripts that lie outside the stated aims and scope of the journal

Topics that are not of interest to the journal’s readership

Manuscripts that do not follow the format specified by the journal

Flaws in study design

Poorly formulated research question

Poor conceptualization of the approach to answering the research questionChoice of a weak or unreliable method

Choice of an incorrect method or model that is not suitable for the problem to be studiedInappropriate statistical analysis

Unreliable or incomplete data

Inappropriate or suboptimal instrumentation

Small or inappropriately chosen sample

Poor Writing and Organization

Inadequate description of methods

Discussion that only repeats the results but does not interpret them

Insufficient explanation of the rationale for the study

Insufficient, incomplete, inaccurate or outdated literature review

Conclusions that do not appear to be supported by the study data

Failure to place the study in a broad context

Introduction that does not establish the background of the problem studied

Inadequate preparation of the manuscript

Failure to follow the journal’s Guide for Authors

Sentences that are not clear and concise

Title, abstract and/or cover letter that are not persuasive

Wordiness and excessive use of jargon

Large number of careless errors like poor grammar or spelling mistakes

Poorly designed tables or figures

Other reasons…

Space constraints

Quality and experience of peer reviewers

Volume of submissions

Journal’s decision-making policy

The journal editor is looking for something specific at a particular timeThe journal receives more than one submission on the same topic

Scientific misconduct

Academic integrity• Honesty and responsibility in scholarship • Results from an individual's own efforts

Examples of misconduct, fraud and dishonesty• Duplicate submissions and publications• Plagiarism• Improper author contribution• Data fabrication and falsification• Figure manipulation• Improper use of human and animal subjects• Conflicts of interest

Editors think twice about accepting any future article if there is any evidence of misconduct, fraud or dishonesty

Duplicate submissions and publications

• Prohibited by international ethics and standards

• Editors DO find out! (Trust us, we DO!)• And they keep lists…

• Immediate rejection possibly arbitrarily

DO NOT submit your manuscript to multiple journals at a time.

Plagiarism

• Derived from the Latin word plagiarius (“kidnapper”)…• Appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results

and/or words without giving appropriate credit. • Plagiarism is unethical because it is Academic/Intellectual:

• Theft• Fraud• Concealment

Definition

“The most dangerous of all falsehoods is a slightly distorted truth.” G.C.Lichtenberg (1742-1799)

“Concealment is at the heart of plagiarism” Richard Posner

Plagiarism: the main types

Direct Plagiarism• Word-for-word transcription

without attribution

Self Plagiarism• Borrows generously from the

writer’s previous work without citation

Mosaic Plagiarism• Paraphrases from multiple

sources, made to fit together and contains almost no original work

Accidental Plagiarism• Neglects to cite sources, or

misquotes their sources or unintentionally paraphrases sources without attribution

Plagiarism: prevention

All major publishers participating in two plagiarism detection schemes:• Turnitin (aimed at universities)• Ithenticate and crosscheck (aimed at publishers and

corporations)

Database• Approximately 39 million peer reviewed articles which

have been donated by 80 thousand journals and/or 50+ publishers

When in doubt, cite….

Authorship: who’s who of the article

Authorship: definition

The ICMJE recommends that an author has: • Substantially contributed to the conception or design of

the work; or the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data for the work; AND

• Drafted the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND

• Provided final approval of the version to be published; AND • Agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in

ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. • Anybody else can be added to the acknowledgements

but only with their express permission

Author order and abuses

• First Author• Conducts and/or supervises the data generation and analysis

and the proper presentation and interpretation of the results• Puts paper together and submits the paper to journal

• Corresponding author• The first author or a senior author from the institution

• Particularly when the first author is a PhD student or postdoc, and may move to another institution soon

General principles

• Ghost Authors: leaving out authors who should be included • Gift Authors: including authors who did not contribute

significantly but as a personal favour or in return for payment• Guest Authors: including authors who did not contribute

significantly because of their seniority, reputation or supposed influence

Abuses to be avoided

Data fabrication and falsification

• Intentional act of making up data or results and recording or reporting them

Data fabrication

• Intentional act of manipulating• Research materials• Equipment or processes• Changing or omitting/suppressing data or results without

scientific or statistical justification• “misrepresentation of uncertainty” during statistical

analysis of the data

Falsification

Figure manipulation

Definition• Either selectively altering or

reconstructing to show something that did not exist originally for whatever reason, intention or purpose

Specifics• Enhancing, obscuring, moving,

removing or introducing something to the original figure or photograph

Adjustments

• Must be fully disclosed in the legend• Brightness, contrast, colour balance

and nonlinear adjustments• Must not eliminate or obscure any of

the original information or data

Improper use of human and animal subjects

Data integrity

• Comprehensive documentation• Throughout the collection process• Essential

• Quality assurance• Prevention; before• Standardization of protocol

• Quality control• Documentation and correction; during and after

Consequences from

improperly collected data

• Inability to answer research questions accurately• Inability to repeat and validate the study• Distorted findings resulting in wasted resources• Misleading other researchers to pursue fruitless

avenues of investigation • Compromising decisions for public policy • Causing harm to human participants and animal

subjects

Conflicts of interest

If the author(s) and/or their institution• Have financial, personal relations or any other

reason• Which affects their ability to conduct the

experiment, collect and/or analyse the data• Objectively and without bias or prejudice• Both actual and/or perceived interests must be

disclosed that do and which might appear to influence this ability

Writing science

“The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure pure reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog!” Bill Watterson

The science of writing

“Science is complicated and sometimes chaotic; scientific writing should be clear and focused.” - Jasenka Piljac Zegarac, Ph.D.

General writing: example

A good paragraph generally possesses several key features that contribute to its

clarity and effectiveness in presenting information. The first feature is a topic

sentence that provides the reader with a general overview of the topic covered in the

ensuing paragraph. The body of the paragraph should provide substantial

information with references and evidence supporting the topic sentence. The final

sentence serves to wrap up the ideas and prepare the reader for material to follow in

the next paragraph, also known as a transition sentence. Upon reading the final

sentence, the reader should be able to name the topic of the following paragraph.

Article structure

TitleAbstractKeywordsMain text (IMRAD)

• Introduction• Methods• Results• And

• Discussion

ConclusionAcknowledgementsReferencesSupplementary Data

Essence of the article

The central message

Don’t be hasty

The whole article will be based upon and supporting this message

Planning is crucial to achieving perfection

What are the three central points of the research?Summarise the article into a maximum of two sentences (45 – 50 words)Describe the work to a non-collaborative colleague in one minute

Planning your article

1. Develop a central message of the manuscript

2. Define the materials and methods

3. Summarize the question(s) and problem(s)

4. Define the principal findings and results

5. Describe the conclusions and implications

6. Organize and group related ideas together

7. Identify the references that pertain to each key point

www.sfedit.net

Writing structure

Title

• Series of keywords that function as a label• Fewest possible words to specifically and descriptively

“sell” the contents of the paper

The title is a:

• Scientific and chemical names to be in full• Express only one idea or subject• Be concise

• 10 to 12 words is recommended• No need for verbs or articles• Avoid redundancy

• Write the title with the outline and refine often

Rules

Abstract

Assessment and identification• Major objectives and conclusions• Phrases with keywords from the methods section • Major results from the discussion or results section

Single paragraph of essential information• Hypothesis or method used in the first sentence• Omit background information, literature review and detailed

description of methods• Remove extra words, phrases and jargon

Meets the guidelines of the targeted journal• Revise until it’s as short as possible and can stand alone• Advertises the article and your research

Keywords

Will determine whether or not the article is found!

• Too general (“drug delivery”, “mouse”, “disease”, etc.)• Too narrow (so that nobody will ever search for it)

Avoid making them

• Look at the keywords of articles relevant to your manuscript

• Search for these keywords and see whether they return relevant papers

• Neither too many nor too few

An effective approach:

Introduction: the wood…

Organisation: General to the specific• Concise background

• Clinical/scientific question• Objective of the investigation

• What are the goals?• Describe unknowns• Population• Methods, materials and measurements• Primary hypothesis

• Secondary hypothesis

Foundations• Why is this study significant?

• Hook the reader to the “story”• Cite only relevant and pertinent literature

• Editor and reviewers may think you don’t have a clue where you are writing about

• Directly related to the question and/or problem

Introduction: …through the trees

• State the hypothesis • Variables investigated• Concise summary of the methods used• Define any abbreviations or specialized terms• Avoid acronyms and jargon wherever possible• Do not overuse expressions such as “novel”, “first time”, “first

ever”, “paradigm shift” etc

Framework

• Concise discussion of the results and other related studies• Describe some, not all, of the major findings

• How do they contribute to the larger field of research?• Principal conclusions• Questions left unanswered• New questions generated by the study

The Big Picture

Methodology: the how

Describe and Define• Patients, animals, etc

• Institutional review board approval and informed consent• Material and equipment

• Give as much detail as possible• More details is better

• Describe the treatments • Consult a statiscian

• Ensure that the statistical analysis of the data is appropriate and is accurately described

• Give vendor names (and addresses) of equipment etc. used• All chemicals must be identified

• Do not use proprietary, unidentifiable compounds without description

Methodology: continued

How was the problem studied?

• Identify the procedures followed• Illustrate and describe

procedures in detail• Chronologically wherever

possible• Compare with other

methods• Cite literature reference

Results = new knowledge

Big picture• Don’t repeat what has already been mentioned about the

experimental details in Methods• Help the reader to understand what happened next in the “story”

of answering the research question

Present the data, don’t interpret it• Use the past tense• Be discriminatory

• Show what is important; take the mean value of the raw data• Organise from most to least important throughout the section

• Summarise any statistical analysis• Text should complement figures and tables not repeat it• Write with accuracy, brevity and clarity

Tables and figures

Organisation• Essential information that could not adequately be presented in

the text• They should tell a “story”• Be sufficiently complete to stand alone, without referring to the

text• If both independent and dependent variables are numeric:- line

diagrams or scattergrams• If dependent variable is numeric:- bar graphs• Proportions:- bar graphs or pie charts

Try to avoid including long boring tables!

Tables and figures continued

Line graphs/scattergrams• Un-crowded plots

• 3 or 4 data sets per figure• Data sets should be easily distinguishable

• Appropriately selected scales and axis label sizes• Symbols should be clear to read • Graph as much data as possible

Photographs• A professional quality scale marker in a corner must be included• Only English text in photos

Use colour ONLY when necessary• If different line styles can clarify the meaning, then avoid using colours or

other thrilling effects• Colours must be visible and distinguishable when printed in black & white

Discussion: what does it all mean?

Organisation: Specific to the general• Findings to the literature, to theory and to practice • Summarise the principal implications regardless of statistical significance

• Discuss everything but be concise, brief and specific• Perfect tense

Restate the hypothesis• Answer the questions/provide solutions to the problems• Support with the results

Pitfalls to avoid• Don’t claim to be first• Don’t ramble• Don’t review the literature

• Unless for context and acknowledging key previous efforts in the field

Discussion: continued

Each major finding/result in perspective • Describe the patterns, principles, and relationships• First state the answer to question, then the relevant results and then cite

the work of others• Describe how the results are consistent with previously published

knowledge • If necessary, refer to a figure or table to enhance the “story”

Discuss and evaluate• Conflicting explanations for the results• Unexpected findings

Explain the importance of the results• Influence our knowledge or understanding of the problem being examined• Avoid undue speculation without supporting results• Discuss statistical vs. clinical significance

Discussion: continued some more

Limitations and weaknesses• Don’t be apologetic• How and in what way are they important to the interpretation of

the results• How they may affect the validity of the findings

Recommendations for further research• Max two• Don’t suggest that which could and should have been addressed

Conclusion

Summarise the findings

• Clearly and concisely state the principal findings

• Discuss all ambiguous data

Generalize their

importance and

relevance

• Discuss the findings in relation to previous work

• Briefly discuss how they support or contradict hypothesis

• Present global and specific conclusions as a final thought

• Understate the conclusions but be clear about the implications of the study based upon the data

Recommend further

research

Revise, revise and revise again…

Be your own harshest critic • Rewrite the whole article

• Look out for redundancies• Illogical inconsistencies

• Read it out loud several times• Sleep on it• Give an oral presentation• Give it to someone else to read

• A colleague in the same field• A colleague in the same department• An intelligent and discerning friend

To publish or not to publish?

Publish…• Presenting new, original results or methods• Rationalizing, refining or reinterpreting published

results• Reviewing or summarizing a particular subject or

fieldDon’t publish…• If the article is of no scientific interest• The research is out of date• Duplicating previously published work• Conclusions are incorrect/not acceptable

An excellent article

The manuscript is timely and relevant to a current problem

The manuscript is well written, logical and easy to comprehend

The study is well designed and uses the appropriate methodology

The cover letter

Opportunity to correspond directly with the journal editor. • Will not be rejected if bad

• Might leave a bad impression• Good cover letter may accelerate the editorial process

Another opportunity to advertise your research• Don’t summarize the manuscript• Don’t repeat the abstract• Show the big picture including the background

• How is it special and/or worthwhile to the journal?• Mention why the manuscript is original and what your purpose is

• Very briefly explain• What was done and what was found• How will this interest the readers?

The cover letter: continued

Be transparent• If the manuscript has been previously rejected• Took the opportunity to revise it several more

timesMention special requirements• Conflicts of interest• Suggested reviewers and those who should not

review• Final approval of all co-authors

References

• Any information which is neither from your experiment nor ‘common knowledge’ should be recognised by a citation

• In press with a Data Object Indentifier (DOI) is allowed• 10.1016/j.drugpo.2015.01.017• An alphanumeric designed for a specific journal so as to

indentify an object such as an electronic document

If any previously published work is used then the source must acknowledged

• Always refer to the Guide for Authors• Harvard• Vancouver

Reference styles

Harvard Reference Style

  Uses the author's name and date of publication in the body of the text and is alphabetical by author in the references • Adams, A.B. (1983a) Article title: subtitle. Journal

Title 46 (Suppl. 2), 617-619.• Adams, A.B. (1983b) Book Title. Publisher, New

York.  • Bennett, W.P., Hoskins, M.A., Brady, F.P. et al.

(1993) Article title. Journal Title 334 , 31-35.

Vancouver Reference Style

Number series to indicate references in the body of the text and reference section lists these in numerical order as they appear in the text• 1. Adams, A.B. (1983) Article title: subtitle.

Journal Title 46 (Suppl. 2), 617-619. • 2. Lessells, D.E. (1989) Chapter title. In: Arnold,

J.R. & Davies, G.H.B. (eds.) Book Title , 3rd edn. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp. 32-68.

• 3. Bennett, W.P., Hoskins, M.A., Brady, F.P. et al. (1993) Article title. Journal Title 334 , 31-35.

Reporting guidelines

The various study designs have specific reporting guidelines which include:◦Randomized trials CONSORT ◦Observational studies STROBE ◦Systematic reviews and meta-analyses PRISMA◦Studies of diagnostic accuracy STARD◦Reporting qualitative research COREQ◦Synthesis of qualitative research ENTREQ◦Quality improvement in health care SQUIRE ◦Defining standard protocol items for clinical trials

SPIRIT◦More can be found on

http://www.equator-network.org/

Examples of reference styles

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Sample Referenceshttp://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/uniform_requirements.html

How to Cite References Murdoch University, Australia http://library.murdoch.edu.au/Students/Referencing/

BMA Reference Styleshttp://

bma.org.uk/about-the-bma/bma-library/library-guide/reference-styles

Useful resources

EQUATOR Network website - resource centre for good reporting of health research studies  http://www.equator-network.org/

Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/manuscript-preparation/

Revised Good Publication Practice (GPP2) to ensure company sponsored medical research is published in a responsible and ethical manner. http://www.ismpp.org/gpp2

Medical Publishing Insights and Practices Initiative (MPIP) http://www.ismpp.org/mpip Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) http://publicationethics.org White paper on the author’s responsibilities http://

publicationethics.org/files/International%20standards_authors_for%20website_11_Nov_2011.pdf European Association of Science Editors (EASE) http://www.ease.org.uk/ Council of Science Editors (CSE) http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/ http://www.benchfly.com/blog/h-index-what-it-is-and-how-to-find-yours/ Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers and journals

http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/ Office of Research Integrity, University of Alaska at Fairbanks,

http://www.uaf.edu/ori/responsible-conduct/ The ten different types of plagiarism http://www.plagiarism.org/plagiarism-101/types-of-plagiarism Data collection and integrity http

://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/n_illinois_u/datamanagement/dctopic.html Figure manipulation http://jcb.rupress.org/content/166/1/11.full A Step by Step Guide to Writing a Scientific Manuscript http://www.aaeditor.org/StepByStepGuide.pdf How to write a paper in scientific journal style and format

◦ http://abacus.bates.edu/~ganderso/biology/resources/writing/HTWtoc.html◦ www.sfedit.net

Checklist: Part 1

Spell check has been performed.

Cited everything that needs citing.

Followed reporting guidelines and protocols.

Text is left justified.

The numbers in the Abstract are consistent with the numbers in the Results.

The Results section refers to the measurements described in the Materials and Methods section

Checklist: Part 2

Read the manuscript aloud to yourself. Does everything read smoothly? Is it easy to understand? Does something sound odd in terms of language, presentation, facts, or context? The manuscript addresses the “So what?” question? (Why should anyone care about this paper?)

Limitations are discussed at the end of the discussion.

The study answers the question posed in the introduction.

The manuscript is consistent (e.g., the abstract, introduction, results, discussion, tables and figures are internally consistent).

The conclusions are supported by the data?

The conclusion in the abstract is the same as the conclusion in the discussion.

Be persistent

Questions?

My contact details:

Hythm ShiblManaging Editor and Publishing RepresentativeScientific Journals UnitVice-Rectorate for Graduate Studies and Scientific ResearchPrince Salman Library, Building 27King Saud University

Mobile:- +966 564287837Office Landline:- +9661 4693843Email:- mr.h.shibl@gmail.com