# data[].attributes.headline
Scientific writing and publishing for early-career researchers from the perspective of young chemists

# data[].attributes.subject
Scientific writing and publishing for early-career researchers from the perspective of young chemists

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Scientific writing and publishing for early-career researchers from the perspective of young chemists

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Writing and publishing present an integrated part of the scientific enterprise. This process often poses challenges, particularly for students without prior scientific writing experience, while regular study programs often overlook the importance of the subject. In this article, we outline some of t…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This page is your source for scientific writing & publishing essentials. Learn how to write a successful scientific research article with our free, practical guides and hands-on resources for authors looking to improve their scientific publishing skillset.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Supports open access

This is a Transformative Journal.

This journal offers authors two options (open access or subscription) to publish their research and is actively committed to transitioning to a fully open access journal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Read the latest articles of Journal of Clinical Epidemiology at ScienceDirect.com, Elsevier's leading platform of peer-reviewed scholarly literature

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Academic Phrasebank is a general resource for academic writers. It aims to provide you with examples of some of the phraseological 'nuts and bolts' of writing organised according to the main sections of a research paper or dissertation (see the top menu ). Other phrases are listed under the more general communicative functions of academic writing (see the menu on the left). The resource should be particularly useful for writers who need to report their research work. The phrases, and the headings under which they are listed, can be used simply to assist you in thinking about the content and organisation of your own writing, or the phrases can be incorporated into your writing where this is appropriate. In most cases, a certain amount of creativity and adaptation will be necessary when a phrase is used. The items in the Academic Phrasebank are mostly content neutral and generic in nature; in using them, therefore, you are not stealing other people's ideas and this does not constitute plagiarism. For some of the entries, specific content words have been included for illustrative purposes, and these should be substituted when the phrases are used. The resource was designed primarily for academic and scientific writers who are non-native speakers of English. However, native speaker writers may still find much of the material helpful. In fact, recent data suggest that the majority of users are native speakers of English. More about Academic Phrasebank.

This site was created by John Morley.

Academic Phrasebank is the Intellectual Property of the University of Manchester.

Copyright © 2023 The University of Manchester

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Academic Phrasebank is a general resource for academic writers. It aims to provide you with examples of some of the phraseological 'nuts and bolts' of writing organised according to the main sections of a research paper or dissertation (see the top menu ).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to Main Content

Purpose of Guide

This guide is intended to help you organize and write a quality academic research paper. Also included are recommendations regarding how to manage specific course assignments. Note that, if you have specific questions about how to write a research paper, you should always seek advice from your professor before you begin. Specific requirements stated by your professor will always supersede instructions provided in these general guidelines.

Dr. Robert V. Labaree of the Von KleinSmid Center Library for International and Public Affairs, University of Southern California Libraries , for sharing the content of this guide.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Research Guides: Organizing Academic Research Papers: Purpose of Guide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Research Guides: Organizing Academic Research Papers: Purpose of Guide

# data[].attributes.headline
Three tips for giving a great research talk

# data[].attributes.subject
Three tips for giving a great research talk

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When I arrived at UBC, my colleague John Ries, who had been hired the year before, explained to me that Jim Brander had given him a formula for writing introductions. I'm afraid I didn't pay much attention at the time because I thought it would stifle my creative juices (is that a mixed metaphor?). Finally, I think I ended up internalizing the rules and now I thought I should make them explicit because they have served us well and I wish I could referee more papers that follow them.

1. Hook: Attract the reader's interest by telling them that this paper relates to something interesting. What makes a topic interesting? Some combination of the following attributes makes Y something worth looking at.

Y matters: When Y rises or falls, people are hurt or helped.

Y is puzzling: it defies easy explanation.

Y is controversial: some argue one thing while other say another.

Y is big (like the service sector) or common (like traffic jams).

Things to avoid:

The bait and switch : promising an interesting topic but delivering something else, in particular, something boring.

"all my friends are doing it" : presenting no other motivation for a topic than that other people have written papers on it.

2. Question: Tell the reader what this paper actually does. Think of this as the point in a trial where having detailed the crime, you now identify a perpetrator and promise to provide a persuasive case. The reader should have an idea of a clean research question that will have a more or less satisfactory answer by the end of the paper. Examples follow below. The question may take two paragraphs. At the end of the first (2nd paragraph of the paper) or possibly beginning of the second (3rd paragraph overall) you should have the "This paper addresses the question" sentence.

3. Antecedents: Identify the prior work that is critical for understanding the contribution this paper will make. The key mistake to avoid here are discussing papers that are not essential parts of the intellectual narrative leading up to your own paper. Give credit where due but establish, in a non-insulting way, that the prior work is incomplete or otherwise deficient in some important way.

4. Value-Added: Describe approximately 3 contributions this paper will make relative to the antecedents. This paragraph might be the most important one for convincing referees not to reject your paper. A big difference between it and the earlier "question" paragraph is that the contributions should make sense only in light of prior work whereas the basic research question of the paper should be understandable simply in terms of knowing the topic (from the hook paragraph). John suggests that "Antecedents" and "Value-added" may be intertwined. They may also take up to 3 paragraphs.

5. Road-map: Outline the organization of the paper. Avoid writing an outline so generic that it could apply to any paper ("the next section is the middle of the paper and then we have the end"). Instead customize the road map to the project and possibly mention pivotal "landmarks" (problems, solutions, results...) that will be seen along the way. But keep this short because many readers will now be eager to get to the heart of the paper.

Brander suggests that you write the intro first but then read and edit it every time you compose other parts of the paper. Thus by the end, the intro will have received more attention, more times, than any other part of the paper. The introduction is not just important because of the "first impressions" idea that it will tilt the referee for or against you (though it probably will). It is also vital to making sure you know yourself what you are doing in the paper and why. If you can't write a good introduction, then you may be writing the wrong paper.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When I arrived at UBC, my colleague John Ries, who had been hired the year before, explained to me that Jim Brander had given him a formula for writing introductions. I'm afraid I didn't pay much attention at the time because I thought it would stifle my creative juices (is that a mixed metaphor?).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Writing manuscripts to describe study outcomes, although not easy, is the main task of an academician. The aim of the present review is to outline the main aspects of writing the discussion section of a manuscript. Additionally, we address various issues regarding manuscripts in general. It is advisable to work on a manuscript regularly to avoid losing familiarity with the article. On principle, simple, clear and effective language should be used throughout the text. In addition, a pre-peer review process is recommended to obtain feedback on the manuscript. The discussion section can be written in 3 parts: an introductory paragraph, intermediate paragraphs and a conclusion paragraph. For intermediate paragraphs, a "divide and conquer" approach, meaning a full paragraph describing each of the study endpoints, can be used. In conclusion, academic writing is similar to other skills, and practice makes perfect.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
academic writing; discussion section; writing a manuscript

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Academic writing; discussion section; writing a manuscript

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The .gov means it's official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Abstract

Health research, medical education and clinical practice form the three pillars of modern day medical practice. As one authority rightly put it: 'Health research is not a luxury, but an essential need that no nation can afford to ignore'. Health research can and should be pursued by a broad range of people. Even if they do not conduct research themselves, they need to grasp the principles of the scientific method to understand the value and limitations of science and to be able to assess and evaluate results of research before applying them. This review paper aims to highlight the essential concepts to the students and beginning researchers and sensitize and motivate the readers to access the vast literature available on research methodologies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Rethinking Giftedness and Gifted Education: A Proposed Direction Forward Based on Psychological Science.

Subotnik RF, Olszewski-Kubilius P, Worrell FC. Subotnik RF, et al. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2011 Jan;12(1):3-54. doi: 10.1177/1529100611418056. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2011. PMID: 26168418

The future of Cochrane Neonatal.

Soll RF, Ovelman C, McGuire W. Soll RF, et al. Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12. Early Hum Dev. 2020. PMID: 33036834

[The origin of informed consent].

Mallardi V. Mallardi V. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2005 Oct;25(5):312-27. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2005. PMID: 16602332 Italian.

Implementing goals for non-cognitive outcomes within a basic science course.

Derstine PL. Derstine PL. Acad Med. 2002 Sep;77(9):931-2. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200209000-00035. Acad Med. 2002. PMID: 12228102 Review.

Support at Home: Interventions to Enhance Life in Dementia (SHIELD) - evidence, development and evaluation of complex interventions.

Orrell M, Hoe J, Charlesworth G, Russell I, Challis D, Moniz-Cook E, Knapp M, Woods B, Hoare Z, Aguirre E, Toot S, Streater A, Crellin N, Whitaker C, d'Amico F, Rehill A. Orrell M, et al. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2017 Feb. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2017 Feb. PMID: 28211659 Free Books & Documents. Review.

Cited by

Writing a Research Proposal to The Research Council of Oman.

Al-Shukaili A, Al-Maniri A. Al-Shukaili A, et al. Oman Med J. 2017 May;32(3):180-188. doi: 10.5001/omj.2017.35. Oman Med J. 2017. PMID: 28584597 Free PMC article. Review.

Manipulating measurement scales in medical statistical analysis and data mining: A review of methodologies.

Marateb HR, Mansourian M, Adibi P, Farina D. Marateb HR, et al. J Res Med Sci. 2014 Jan;19(1):47-56. J Res Med Sci. 2014. PMID: 24672565 Free PMC article. Review.

References

Wong P. How to write research proposal. International network on Personal meaning. Available at www.meaning.ca/archives Accessed June 18, 2008.

Traenkel JR, Wallen NE. How to design and evaluate research in education. On line learning center with power web. Available at www.highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072981369/student_view0/chapter24/ke... Accessed June 18, 2008.

Fathalla MF, Fathalla MM. A practical guide for health researchers. WHO Regional Publications, Eastern Mediterranean. Series 30. In: WHO 2004.

Wilkinson AM. The scientist's handbook for writing papers and dissertations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1991.

Health research methodology: A guide for training in research methods. WHO Regional publications. Western Pacific education in action. Series 5. WHO 1992.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
national center for biotechnology information

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to prepare a Research Proposal - PubMed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Health research, medical education and clinical practice form the three pillars of modern day medical practice. As one authority rightly put it: 'Health research is not a luxury, but an essential need that no nation can afford to ignore'. Health research can and should be pursued by a broad range of ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Brett Mensh,

Konrad Kording

Related PLOS Articles

has CORRECTION

Correction: Ten simple rules for structuring papers

Subject Areas

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

We want your feedback. Do these Subject Areas make sense for this article? Click the target next to the incorrect Subject Area and let us know. Thanks for your help!

Citation: Mensh B, Kording K (2017) Ten simple rules for structuring papers. PLoS Comput Biol 13(9): e1005619. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005619

Editor: Scott Markel, Dassault Systemes BIOVIA, UNITED STATES

Published: September 28, 2017

Copyright: © 2017 Mensh, Kording. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Overview

Good scientific writing is essential to career development and to the progress of science. A well-structured manuscript allows readers and reviewers to get excited about the subject matter, to understand and verify the paper's contributions, and to integrate these contributions into a broader context. However, many scientists struggle with producing high-quality manuscripts and are typically untrained in paper writing. Focusing on how readers consume information, we present a set of ten simple rules to help you communicate the main idea of your paper. These rules are designed to make your paper more influential and the process of writing more efficient and pleasurable.

Introduction

Writing and reading papers are key skills for scientists. Indeed, success at publishing is used to evaluate scientists [ 1] and can help predict their future success [ 2]. In the production and consumption of papers, multiple parties are involved, each having their own motivations and priorities. The editors want to make sure that the paper is significant, and the reviewers want to determine whether the conclusions are justified by the results. The reader wants to quickly understand the conceptual conclusions of the paper before deciding whether to dig into the details, and the writer wants to convey the important contributions to the broadest audience possible while convincing the specialist that the findings are credible. You can facilitate all of these goals by structuring the paper well at multiple scales-spanning the sentence, paragraph, section, and document.

Clear communication is also crucial for the broader scientific enterprise because "concept transfer" is a rate-limiting step in scientific cross-pollination. This is particularly true in the biological sciences and other fields that comprise a vast web of highly interconnected sub-disciplines. As scientists become increasingly specialized, it becomes more important (and difficult) to strengthen the conceptual links. Communication across disciplinary boundaries can only work when manuscripts are readable, credible, and memorable.

The claim that gives significance to your work has to be supported by data and by a logic that gives it credibility. Without carefully planning the paper's logic, writers will often be missing data or missing logical steps on the way to the conclusion. While these lapses are beyond our scope, your scientific logic must be crystal clear to powerfully make your claim.

Here we present ten simple rules for structuring papers. The first four rules are principles that apply to all the parts of a paper and further to other forms of communication such as grants and posters. The next four rules deal with the primary goals of each of the main parts of papers. The final two rules deliver guidance on the process-heuristics for efficiently constructing manuscripts.

Principles (Rules 1-4)

Writing is communication. Thus, the reader's experience is of primary importance, and all writing serves this goal. When you write, you should constantly have your reader in mind. These four rules help you to avoid losing your reader.

Rule 1: Focus your paper on a central contribution, which you communicate in the title

Your communication efforts are successful if readers can still describe the main contribution of your paper to their colleagues a year after reading it. Although it is clear that a paper often needs to communicate a number of innovations on the way to its final message, it does not pay to be greedy. Focus on a single message; papers that simultaneously focus on multiple contributions tend to be less convincing about each and are therefore less memorable.

The most important element of a paper is the title-think of the ratio of the number of titles you read to the number of papers you read. The title is typically the first element a reader encounters, so its quality [ 3] determines whether the reader will invest time in reading the abstract.

The title not only transmits the paper's central contribution but can also serve as a constant reminder (to you) to focus the text on transmitting that idea. Science is, after all, the abstraction of simple principles from complex data. The title is the ultimate refinement of the paper's contribution. Thinking about the title early-and regularly returning to hone it-can help not only the writing of the paper but also the process of designing experiments or developing theories.

This Rule of One is the most difficult rule to optimally implement because it comes face-to-face with the key challenge of science, which is to make the claim and/or model as simple as the data and logic can support but no simpler. In the end, your struggle to find this balance may appropriately result in "one contribution" that is multifaceted. For example, a technology paper may describe both its new technology and a biological result using it; the bridge that unifies these two facets is a clear description of how the new technology can be used to do new biology.

Rule 2: Write for flesh-and-blood human beings who do not know your work

Because you are the world's leading expert at exactly what you are doing, you are also the world's least qualified person to judge your writing from the perspective of the naïve reader. The majority of writing mistakes stem from this predicament. Think like a designer-for each element, determine the impact that you want to have on people and then strive to achieve that objective [ 4]. Try to think through the paper like a naïve reader who must first be made to care about the problem you are addressing (see Rule 6) and then will want to understand your answer with minimal effort.

Define technical terms clearly because readers can become frustrated when they encounter a word that they don't understand. Avoid abbreviations and acronyms so that readers do not have to go back to earlier sections to identify them.

The vast knowledge base of human psychology is useful in paper writing. For example, people have working memory constraints in that they can only remember a small number of items and are better at remembering the beginning and the end of a list than the middle [ 5]. Do your best to minimize the number of loose threads that the reader has to keep in mind at any one time.

Rule 3: Stick to the context-content-conclusion (C-C-C) scheme

The vast majority of popular (i.e., memorable and re-tellable) stories have a structure with a discernible beginning, a well-defined body, and an end. The beginning sets up the context for the story, while the body (content) advances the story towards an ending in which the problems find their conclusions. This structure reduces the chance that the reader will wonder "Why was I told that?" (if the context is missing) or "So what?" (if the conclusion is missing).

There are many ways of telling a story. Mostly, they differ in how well they serve a patient reader versus an impatient one [ 6]. The impatient reader needs to be engaged quickly; this can be accomplished by presenting the most exciting content first (e.g., as seen in news articles). The C-C-C scheme that we advocate serves a more patient reader who is willing to spend the time to get oriented with the context. A consequent disadvantage of C-C-C is that it may not optimally engage the impatient reader. This disadvantage is mitigated by the fact that the structure of scientific articles, specifically the primacy of the title and abstract, already forces the content to be revealed quickly. Thus, a reader who proceeds to the introduction is likely engaged enough to have the patience to absorb the context. Furthermore, one hazard of excessive "content first" story structures in science is that you may generate skepticism in the reader because they may be missing an important piece of context that makes your claim more credible. For these reasons, we advocate C-C-C as a "default" scientific story structure.

The C-C-C scheme defines the structure of the paper on multiple scales. At the whole-paper scale, the introduction sets the context, the results are the content, and the discussion brings home the conclusion. Applying C-C-C at the paragraph scale, the first sentence defines the topic or context, the body hosts the novel content put forth for the reader's consideration, and the last sentence provides the conclusion to be remembered.

Deviating from the C-C-C structure often leads to papers that are hard to read, but writers often do so because of their own autobiographical context. During our everyday lives as scientists, we spend a majority of our time producing content and a minority amidst a flurry of other activities. We run experiments, develop the exposition of available literature, and combine thoughts using the magic of human cognition. It is natural to want to record these efforts on paper and structure a paper chronologically. But for our readers, most details of our activities are extraneous. They do not care about the chronological path by which you reached a result; they just care about the ultimate claim and the logic supporting it (see Rule 7). Thus, all our work must be reformatted to provide a context that makes our material meaningful and a conclusion that helps the reader to understand and remember it.

Rule 4: Optimize your logical flow by avoiding zig-zag and using parallelism

Avoiding zig-zag.

Only the central idea of the paper should be touched upon multiple times. Otherwise, each subject should be covered in only one place in order to minimize the number of subject changes. Related sentences or paragraphs should be strung together rather than interrupted by unrelated material. Ideas that are similar, such as two reasons why we should believe something, should come one immediately after the other.

Using parallelism.

Similarly, across consecutive paragraphs or sentences, parallel messages should be communicated with parallel form. Parallelism makes it easier to read the text because the reader is familiar with the structure. For example, if we have three independent reasons why we prefer one interpretation of a result over another, it is helpful to communicate them with the same syntax so that this syntax becomes transparent to the reader, which allows them to focus on the content. There is nothing wrong with using the same word multiple times in a sentence or paragraph. Resist the temptation to use a different word to refer to the same concept-doing so makes readers wonder if the second word has a slightly different meaning.

The components of a paper (Rules 5-8)

The individual parts of a paper-abstract, introduction, results, and discussion-have different objectives, and thus they each apply the C-C-C structure a little differently in order to achieve their objectives. We will discuss these specialized structures in this section and summarize them in Fig 1.

Note that the abstract is special in that it contains all three elements (Context, Content, and Conclusion), thus comprising all three colors.

Rule 5: Tell a complete story in the abstract

The abstract is, for most readers, the only part of the paper that will be read. This means that the abstract must convey the entire message of the paper effectively. To serve this purpose, the abstract's structure is highly conserved. Each of the C-C-C elements is detailed below.

The context must communicate to the reader what gap the paper will fill. The first sentence orients the reader by introducing the broader field in which the particular research is situated. Then, this context is narrowed until it lands on the open question that the research answered. A successful context section sets the stage for distinguishing the paper's contributions from the current state of the art by communicating what is missing in the literature (i.e., the specific gap) and why that matters (i.e., the connection between the specific gap and the broader context that the paper opened with).

The content ("Here we") first describes the novel method or approach that you used to fill the gap or question. Then you present the meat-your executive summary of the results.

Finally, the conclusion interprets the results to answer the question that was posed at the end of the context section. There is often a second part to the conclusion section that highlights how this conclusion moves the broader field forward (i.e., "broader significance"). This is particularly true for more "general" journals with a broad readership.

This structure helps you avoid the most common mistake with the abstract, which is to talk about results before the reader is ready to understand them. Good abstracts usually take many iterations of refinement to make sure the results fill the gap like a key fits its lock. The broad-narrow-broad structure allows you to communicate with a wider readership (through breadth) while maintaining the credibility of your claim (which is always based on a finite or narrow set of results).

Rule 6: Communicate why the paper matters in the introduction

The introduction highlights the gap that exists in current knowledge or methods and why it is important. This is usually done by a set of progressively more specific paragraphs that culminate in a clear exposition of what is lacking in the literature, followed by a paragraph summarizing what the paper does to fill that gap.

As an example of the progression of gaps, a first paragraph may explain why understanding cell differentiation is an important topic and that the field has not yet solved what triggers it (a field gap). A second paragraph may explain what is unknown about the differentiation of a specific cell type, such as astrocytes (a subfield gap). A third may provide clues that a particular gene might drive astrocytic differentiation and then state that this hypothesis is untested (the gap within the subfield that you will fill). The gap statement sets the reader's expectation for what the paper will deliver.

The structure of each introduction paragraph (except the last) serves the goal of developing the gap. Each paragraph first orients the reader to the topic (a context sentence or two) and then explains the "knowns" in the relevant literature (content) before landing on the critical "unknown" (conclusion) that makes the paper matter at the relevant scale. Along the path, there are often clues given about the mystery behind the gaps; these clues lead to the untested hypothesis or undeveloped method of the paper and give the reader hope that the mystery is solvable. The introduction should not contain a broad literature review beyond the motivation of the paper. This gap-focused structure makes it easy for experienced readers to evaluate the potential importance of a paper-they only need to assess the importance of the claimed gap.

The last paragraph of the introduction is special: it compactly summarizes the results, which fill the gap you just established. It differs from the abstract in the following ways: it does not need to present the context (which has just been given), it is somewhat more specific about the results, and it only briefly previews the conclusion of the paper, if at all.

Rule 7: Deliver the results as a sequence of statements, supported by figures, that connect logically to support the central contribution

The results section needs to convince the reader that the central claim is supported by data and logic. Every scientific argument has its own particular logical structure, which dictates the sequence in which its elements should be presented.

For example, a paper may set up a hypothesis, verify that a method for measurement is valid in the system under study, and then use the measurement to disprove the hypothesis. Alternatively, a paper may set up multiple alternative (and mutually exclusive) hypotheses and then disprove all but one to provide evidence for the remaining interpretation. The fabric of the argument will contain controls and methods where they are needed for the overall logic.

In the outlining phase of paper preparation (see Rule 9), sketch out the logical structure of how your results support your claim and convert this into a sequence of declarative statements that become the headers of subsections within the results section (and/or the titles of figures). Most journals allow this type of formatting, but if your chosen journal does not, these headers are still useful during the writing phase and can either be adapted to serve as introductory sentences to your paragraphs or deleted before submission. Such a clear progression of logical steps makes the paper easy to follow.

Figures, their titles, and legends are particularly important because they show the most objective support (data) of the steps that culminate in the paper's claim. Moreover, figures are often viewed by readers who skip directly from the abstract in order to save time. Thus, the title of the figure should communicate the conclusion of the analysis, and the legend should explain how it was done. Figure making is an art unto itself; the Edward Tufte books remain the gold standard for learning this craft [ 7, 8].

The first results paragraph is special in that it typically summarizes the overall approach to the problem outlined in the introduction, along with any key innovative methods that were developed. Most readers do not read the methods, so this paragraph gives them the gist of the methods that were used.

Each subsequent paragraph in the results section starts with a sentence or two that set up the question that the paragraph answers, such as the following: "To verify that there are no artifacts...," "What is the test-retest reliability of our measure?," or "We next tested whether Ca ²⁺ flux through L-type Ca ²⁺ channels was involved." The middle of the paragraph presents data and logic that pertain to the question, and the paragraph ends with a sentence that answers the question. For example, it may conclude that none of the potential artifacts were detected. This structure makes it easy for experienced readers to fact-check a paper. Each paragraph convinces the reader of the answer given in its last sentence. This makes it easy to find the paragraph in which a suspicious conclusion is drawn and to check the logic of that paragraph. The result of each paragraph is a logical statement, and paragraphs farther down in the text rely on the logical conclusions of previous paragraphs, much as theorems are built in mathematical literature.

Rule 8: Discuss how the gap was filled, the limitations of the interpretation, and the relevance to the field

The discussion section explains how the results have filled the gap that was identified in the introduction, provides caveats to the interpretation, and describes how the paper advances the field by providing new opportunities. This is typically done by recapitulating the results, discussing the limitations, and then revealing how the central contribution may catalyze future progress. The first discussion paragraph is special in that it generally summarizes the important findings from the results section. Some readers skip over substantial parts of the results, so this paragraph at least gives them the gist of that section.

Each of the following paragraphs in the discussion section starts by describing an area of weakness or strength of the paper. It then evaluates the strength or weakness by linking it to the relevant literature. Discussion paragraphs often conclude by describing a clever, informal way of perceiving the contribution or by discussing future directions that can extend the contribution.

For example, the first paragraph may summarize the results, focusing on their meaning. The second through fourth paragraphs may deal with potential weaknesses and with how the literature alleviates concerns or how future experiments can deal with these weaknesses. The fifth paragraph may then culminate in a description of how the paper moves the field forward. Step by step, the reader thus learns to put the paper's conclusions into the right context.

Process (Rules 9 and 10)

To produce a good paper, authors can use helpful processes and habits. Some aspects of a paper affect its impact more than others, which suggests that your investment of time should be weighted towards the issues that matter most. Moreover, iteratively using feedback from colleagues allows authors to improve the story at all levels to produce a powerful manuscript. Choosing the right process makes writing papers easier and more effective.

Rule 9: Allocate time where it matters: Title, abstract, figures, and outlining

The central logic that underlies a scientific claim is paramount. It is also the bridge that connects the experimental phase of a research effort with the paper-writing phase. Thus, it is useful to formalize the logic of ongoing experimental efforts (e.g., during lab meetings) into an evolving document of some sort that will ultimately steer the outline of the paper.

You should also allocate your time according to the importance of each section. The title, abstract, and figures are viewed by far more people than the rest of the paper, and the methods section is read least of all. Budget accordingly.

The time that we do spend on each section can be used efficiently by planning text before producing it. Make an outline. We like to write one informal sentence for each planned paragraph. It is often useful to start the process around descriptions of each result-these may become the section headers in the results section. Because the story has an overall arc, each paragraph should have a defined role in advancing this story. This role is best scrutinized at the outline stage in order to reduce wasting time on wordsmithing paragraphs that don't end up fitting within the overall story.

Rule 10: Get feedback to reduce, reuse, and recycle the story

Writing can be considered an optimization problem in which you simultaneously improve the story, the outline, and all the component sentences. In this context, it is important not to get too attached to one's writing. In many cases, trashing entire paragraphs and rewriting is a faster way to produce good text than incremental editing.

There are multiple signs that further work is necessary on a manuscript (see Table 1). For example, if you, as the writer, cannot describe the entire outline of a paper to a colleague in a few minutes, then clearly a reader will not be able to. You need to further distill your story. Finding such violations of good writing helps to improve the paper at all levels.

Successfully writing a paper typically requires input from multiple people. Test readers are necessary to make sure that the overall story works. They can also give valuable input on where the story appears to move too quickly or too slowly. They can clarify when it is best to go back to the drawing board and retell the entire story. Reviewers are also extremely useful. Non-specific feedback and unenthusiastic reviews often imply that the reviewers did not "get" the big picture story line. Very specific feedback usually points out places where the logic within a paragraph was not sufficient. It is vital to accept this feedback in a positive way. Because input from others is essential, a network of helpful colleagues is fundamental to making a story memorable. To keep this network working, make sure to pay back your colleagues by reading their manuscripts.

Discussion

This paper focused on the structure, or "anatomy," of manuscripts. We had to gloss over many finer points of writing, including word choice and grammar, the creative process, and collaboration. A paper about writing can never be complete; as such, there is a large body of literature dealing with issues of scientific writing [ 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17].

Personal style often leads writers to deviate from a rigid, conserved structure, and it can be a delight to read a paper that creatively bends the rules. However, as with many other things in life, a thorough mastery of the standard rules is necessary to successfully bend them [ 18]. In following these guidelines, scientists will be able to address a broad audience, bridge disciplines, and more effectively enable integrative science.

Acknowledgments

We took our own advice and sought feedback from a large number of colleagues throughout the process of preparing this paper. We would like to especially thank the following people who gave particularly detailed and useful feedback:

Sandra Aamodt, Misha Ahrens, Vanessa Bender, Erik Bloss, Davi Bock, Shelly Buffington, Xing Chen, Frances Cho, Gabrielle Edgerton, multiple generations of the COSMO summer school, Jason Perry, Jermyn See, Nelson Spruston, David Stern, Alice Ting, Joshua Vogelstein, Ronald Weber.

References

1. 1. Hirsch JE (2005) An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 102: 16569-16572. pmid:16275915

2. 2. Acuna DE, Allesina S, Kording KP (2012) Future impact: Predicting scientific success. Nature. 489: 201-202. pmid:22972278

3. 3. Paiva CE, Lima JPSN, Paiva BSR (2012) Articles with short titles describing the results are cited more often. Clinics. 67: 509-513. pmid:22666797

4. 5. Murdock BB Jr (1968) Serial order effects in short-term memory. J Exp Psychol. 76: Suppl:1-15.

5. 10. Simons D (2012) Dan's writing and revising guide. http://www.dansimons.com/resources/Simons_on_writing.pdf [cited 2017 Sep 9].

6. 14. Dumont J-L (2009) Trees, Maps, and Theorems. Principiae. http://www.treesmapsandtheorems.com/ [cited 2017 Sep 9].

7. 16. Bern D (1987) Writing the empirical journal. The compleat academic: A practical guide for the beginning social scientist. 171.

8. 17. George GD, Swan JA (1990) The science of scientific writing. Am Sci. 78: 550-558.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Brett Mensh, Konrad Kording has CORRECTION Correction: Ten simple rules for structuring papers Subject Areas For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here. We want your feedback. Do these Subject Areas make sense for this article? Click the target next to the incorrect Subject Area and let us know.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Formal, objective and cautious language are features common to almost all academic writing. Below are some tips on these three aspects of academic style to get you started.

All university students are expected to research and draw on appropriate sources and then effectively integrate the sources into their own writing - using the correct reference. Three more features common to almost all academic writing is the use of language that is formal, objective and cautious.

To gain a more accurate understanding of the language required in your assignments, it is a good idea to analyse your course readings to learn how specific language is used in your discipline. Also, remember to consult your unit site for any specific requirements regarding language or style.

Note that in some written assignments you may be asked to write in a more subjective style, for example, you may be asked to write a social media post or a personal reflection. Be aware that even with these types of assignments, you will still be expected to draw on supporting evidence, use language that is somewhat formal, somewhat objective (that is, without emotional bias) and somewhat cautious.

Language type

Avoid vague, general and conversational language.

Academic writing uses formal language, which means avoiding the use of slang and colloquial language associated more commonly with speech, text chat, as well as publications, such as newspapers, magazines and online media. It is very rare that you will see informal language used in academic publications, unless it is in a direct quotation.

Here are a few tips for writing in a more formal style in your assignments:

1. Be specific

When making statements in your writing, specific details and examples should be given. What?, Who?, Why?, Where? and When? are all good questions to ask yourself as you research and write but also consider the next level of detail in your questioning. For example: In what way is it important?, Who do they represent?, Exactly how much?, To what extent? and What are the specific factors involved?

Food prices have gone up a lot lately.

Food prices have increased significantly over the past two years.

Chemical cycling is pretty important in an ecosystem.

Chemical cycling plays a key role in the success of an ecosystem. For example, ...

There are many things that make this happen...

There are several factors that contribute to... Firstly, ...

2. Spell out contractions

3. Use formal verb forms

4. Avoid informal shortened forms

Avoid shortened forms used in text and chat

Use a more formal alternative

pros and cons

advantages and disadvantages

FWIW (for what it's worth)

Whether this is considered of value is another question...

ASAP

as soon as possible

Note: There are shortened forms that are appropriate to use in academic writing. In general, most shortened forms (TAFE, ASIC, ASIO, ACT, UNSW) should be spelt out in full in the first instance in your assignment, followed by the shortened form in brackets. For example, Australian Capital Territory (ACT). It is sometimes acceptable to not spell out commonly known shortened forms in full (DVD, PIN, CIA).

Further reading:

Even from first year, your role should be one of an objective critic.

1. Draw on logic and evidence, rather than emotion and uninformed opinion

Objective writing involves making evaluations based on evidence, as well as existing points of view that are supported by evidence. And it is not only research essays and reports - even personal reflective writing is often somewhat objective to the extent that it draws on theory and is limited to reflecting on your professional learning experience (rather than your personal life).

It is important to understand that, even from first year, your role is one of an objective critic. Language that is judgemental and based on uninformed opinion, rather than fact, has no place in good academic writing.

Pronouns such as our and we should be avoided, as they imply a gross generalisation and are often used by writers for manipulative emotive effect.

Evaluate how you describe things in your own writing. Words such as terrible, outrageous, awful, glorious, wonderful and shocking imply personal judgement, which should be avoided in academic writing.

Avoid emotive / judgemental phrases

Direct the reader to specific examples and evidence

Our national values are...

In the survey, respondents identified their adherence to 'national values'
in the following ways...

shocking statistics

The statistical increase was
significant, for example...

elegant writing

Goran's work exemplifies the writing style of a number of nineteenth-century classics, namely...

This was a sad moment in history.

According to several historians (Hobbes 2012; Melville 2006; Smith 2009), contemporary commentators reported the event as 'catastrophic'.

2. Avoid stereotypes

Uninformed assumptions and generalisations are not acceptable in academic writing.

In your writing at university, you will need to express your opinion, or point of view, fairly and without bias. This means not making careless assumptions or generalisations about groups of people. You will need to ensure that you think carefully about any statements you make about people based on their gender, sexuality, ability, ethnicity, age or belief.

You are expected to critically analyse evidence, hypotheses and opinion. The language of stereotypes - uninformed assumptions and generalisations - are never acceptable in academic writing.

Also, keep in mind that a person's gender, ethnicity, or other attributes, need only be included where it is relevant to the topic. For example, is the fact that the person you are describing is Aboriginal or a woman or a Muslim relevant to your topic? If not, consider removing these descriptors.

Here are some examples of gender-neutral language that can be used:

3. Objective vs. subjective language

In most assessments, you will be expected to use objective language. This means avoiding the use of personal pronouns, such as I and my. However, there are always exceptions, so discuss this with your lecturer or check your unit guide to determine exactly what is expected for each assessment. In reflective writing assignments and tasks, for example, you may be expected to use these personal pronouns when drawing on your personal experience of the course.

In this essay, I will discuss...

This essay discusses...

This shows us that...

This shows that...

My approach to this was to...

One method considered was...

In my research I found that...

The research showed that...

Further reading:

Using cautious language actually strengthens your argument.

You may notice from your unit readings that it is quite rare that writers will claim to be 100% certain of their findings, recommendations or opinions - even when supported by solid evidence. Why is this? In order to strengthen their argument, academic writers often use cautious language, such as may indicate, suggests that or probably. By using cautious language, the writer accepts that there is almost always room for doubt and further questioning. This is an accepted academic writing technique that you can use in your assignments.

In much academic writing, the following absolutist phrases are usually avoided: always, forever, all, absolutely, never, none.

Across a range of disciplines, phrases are used to show some caution (sometimes called tentative phrases). These phrases can be used to avoid unreasonable certainty in your own statements and opinions and you can also use these phrases when interpreting and analysing your readings.

Some of these tentative phrases include: indicate, appear, perhaps, suggest, probably, could, would, might, may, possibly, probably, conceivably, arguably, usually, more likely, less likely, and potentially.

Avoid unreasonable certainty

Use cautious language

This research proves that...

This research suggests that...

There is obviously a link between...

Research indicates that there is a link between...

It is absolutely the case that...

It is probable that...

All researchers conclude...

Several researchers concluded...

In this case, clearly they have no contract of sale.

From the facts, it appears most likely that they have no contract of sale.

Conrad states that it is the white settlers who are the true savages.

Conrad implies that it is the white settlers who are the true savages.

Further reading:

Book an appointment with a language and learning adviser or send us an email.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
academic style; formal language; objective language; cautious language

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Formal, objective and cautious language are features common to almost all academic writing. Below are some tips on these three aspects of academic style to get you started.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scientific writing is writing about science, with an implication that the writing is by scientists and for an audience that primarily includes peers-those with sufficient expertise to follow in detail.[1] (The similar term " science writing" instead tends to refer to writing about a scientific topic for a general audience; this could be by scientists and/or journalists, for example.) Scientific writing is a specialized form of technical writing, and a prominent genre of it involves reporting about scientific studies such as in articles for a scientific journal.[2] Other scientific writing genres include writing literature-review articles (also typically for scientific journals), which summarize the existing state of a given aspect of a scientific field, and writing grant proposals, which are a common means of obtaining funding to support scientific research. Scientific writing is more likely to focus on the pure sciences compared to other aspects of technical communication that are more applied, although there is overlap. There is not one specific style for citations and references in scientific writing. Whether you are submitting a grant proposal, literature review articles, or submitting an article into a paper, the citation system that must be used will depend on the publication you plan to submit to.

English-language scientific writing originated in the 14th century, with the language later becoming the dominant medium for the field.[3] Style conventions for scientific writing vary, with different focuses by different style guides on the use of passive versus active voice, personal pronoun use, and article sectioning. Much scientific writing is focused around scientific reports, traditionally structured as an abstract, introduction, methods, results, conclusions, and acknowledgments.

Scientific writing in English started in the 14th century.[4] With the founding in 1665 of the first scientific journal in English, the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, the features of scientific writing gradually evolved from republication of personal letters to freestanding articles, with greater specificity of methods and findings, as well as conclusions to be drawn from evidence.[5] Modern practices of intertextual reference and citation emerged only at the end of the eighteenth century.[6]

The Royal Society established good practice for scientific writing. Founder member Thomas Sprat wrote on the importance of plain and accurate description rather than rhetorical flourishes in his History of the Royal Society of London. Robert Boyle emphasized the importance of not boring the reader with a dull, flat style.[3]

Because most scientific journals accept manuscripts only in English, an entire industry has developed to help non-native English speaking authors improve their text before submission. It is just now becoming an accepted practice to utilize the benefits of these services. This is making it easier for scientists to focus on their research and still get published in top journals.[citation needed ]

Besides the customary readability tests, software tools relying on Natural Language Processing to analyze text help writer scientists evaluate the quality of their manuscripts prior to submission to a journal. SWAN, a Java app written by researchers from the University of Eastern Finland is such a tool.[7][non-primary source needed ]

Publication of research results is the global measure used by all disciplines to gauge a scientist's level of success.[8][9]

Different fields have different conventions for writing style, and individual journals within a field usually have their own style guides. Some issues of scientific writing style include:

Dissuasion from, and sometimes advocacy of, the passive voice.[10][11][12] Advocates for the passive voice argue for its utility in avoiding first-person pronouns, while critics argue that it can be hard to make claims without active voice.[13]

Generalizations about tense. In the mathematical sciences, for example, it is customary to report in the present tense,[14] while in experimental sciences reporting is always in the past tense, as the experiments happened in the past.[15]

Preferences about "we" vs. "I" as personal pronoun or a first-person pronoun (e.g., mathematical deductions sometimes include the reader in the pronoun "we.")[citation needed ]

Contemporary researchers in writing studies have pointed out that blanket generalizations about academic writing are seldom helpful,[16] for example, scientific writing in practice is complex and shifts of tense and person reflect subtle changes in the section of the scientific journal article.[17] Additionally, the use of passive voice allows the writer to focus on the subject being studied (the focus of the communication in science) rather than the author.[18] Similarly, some use of first-person pronouns is acceptable (such as "we" or "I," which depends on the number of authors).[19][20] According to some journal editors, the best practice is to review articles recently published in the journal a researcher is planning to submit to.[21]

Scientific writing has a strong emphasis on the use of peer-reviewing throughout the writing process. Primarily at the publication phase, when an article is about to be published, most scientific journals will require 1-3 peers to review. The process of peer-reviewing is to ensure that the information that is attempting to be published is accurate and well thought out.

Nobel Prize-winning chemist Roald Hoffmann has stated that, in the chemical sciences, drawing chemistry is as fundamental as writing chemistry.[22]

Different types of citation and reference systems are used in scientific papers. The specific citation style scientific articles use depends on the journal in which the article is published. Two examples of styles commonly seen in scientific journals are the Vancouver System and the Harvard System. The Vancouver system is more used for medical journals, while the Harvard System is more used for social and natural science journals.[23] One typical citation style used for a specific discipline is the ACS (American Chemical Society) system, used for Scientific articles on Chemistry.[24] The AMS (American Mathematical Society) style is commonly used for research papers with a base in mathematics.[25] The AIP (American Institute of Physics) Style is typically used for scientific writing pertaining to physics.[26]

The stages of the scientific method are often incorporated into sections of scientific reports.[27] The first section is typically the abstract, followed by the introduction, methods, results, conclusions, and acknowledgments.[28] The introduction discusses the issue studied and discloses the hypothesis tested in the experiment. The step-by-step procedure, notable observations, and relevant data collected are all included in methods and results. The discussion section consists of the author's analysis and interpretations of the data. Additionally, the author may choose to discuss any discrepancies with the experiment that could have altered the results. The conclusion summarizes the experiment and will make inferences about the outcomes.[28] The paper will typically end with an acknowledgments section, giving proper attribution to any other contributors besides the main author(s). In order to get published, papers must go through peer review by experts with significant knowledge in the field. During this process, papers may get rejected or edited with adequate justification.[29]

This historically emerged form of argument has been periodically criticized for obscuring the process or investigation, eliminating the incorrect guesses, false leads, and errors that may have occurred before coming to the final method, data, explanation, and argument presented in the published paper. This lack of transparency was criticized by Joseph Priestley as early as 1767 as mystifying the research process[30] and more recently for similar reasons by Nobel Laureate Peter Medawar in a BBC talk in 1964.[31]

1. ^ "Science Writing vs. Scientific Writing - Duke Graduate School Scientific Writing Resource".

2. ^ "Sciences".

3. ^ a Joseph E. Harmon, Alan G. Gross (15 May 2007), "On Early English Scientific Writing", The scientific literature, University of Chicago Press, ISBN 9780226316567 b

4. ^ Irma Taavitsainen, Päivi Pahta (11 March 2004), Medical and scientific writing in late medieval English, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 9780521831338

5. C. Bazerman (1988). ^ Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1988.

6. C. Bazerman (1991). How natural philosophers can cooperate: The rhetorical technology of coordinated research in Joseph Priestley's ^ History and Present State of Electricity. In C. Bazerman & J. Paradis (Eds.), textual dynamics of the professions (pp. 13-44). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

7. ^ "Scientific Writing Assistant". April 2012.

8. ^ Noble, Keith (1989). "Publish or perish: What 23 journal editors have to say". Studies in Higher Education. 14 (1): 97. doi:10.1080/03075078912331377642.

9. ^ Chuanjun, He; Chunmei, Yan (11 October 2017). "To be or not to be? The "publish or perish" syndrome for English teacher educators in China". Frontiers of Education in China. 10 (4): 526-528. doi:10.1007/BF03397087. S2CID 147651818.

10. ^ Day, Robert; Sakaduski, Nancy (30 June 2011). Scientific English: A Guide for Scientists and Other Professionals, Third Edition. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-0-313-39173-6.

11. ^ Dawson, Chris (2007). "Prescriptions and proscriptions. The three Ps of scientific writing - past, passive and personal". Teaching Science: The Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Association. 53 (2): 36-38.

12. ^ Lab, Purdue Writing. "More about Passive Voice // Purdue Writing Lab". Purdue Writing Lab.

13. ^ "Passive Voice". The Writing Center * University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

14. ^ Nicholas J. Higham, 1998. Handbook of writing for the mathematical sciences, Second Edition. Philadelphia: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. p. 56

15. ^ Carlson CS, Postema M (2023). A pocket-sized recipe for cooking up a scientific manuscript. Tampere: Tampere University. doi:10.5281/zenodo.7583988. ISBN 978-952-03-2769-9.

16. Wolfe, Joanna (2009). "How Technical Communication Textbooks Fail Engineering Students" ^ Technical Communication Quarterly, 18(4), 351-375.

17. Giltrow, Janet et al. (2014) "Tense and the Story of Research." ^ Academic Writing: An Introduction. 3rd ed. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press, 284-290

18. ^ Banks, David (2017). "The extent to which the passive voice is used in the scientific journal article". Functional Linguistics. 4 (1). doi:10.1186/s40554-017-0045-5. S2CID 2404784.

19. ^ Thonney, Teresa (2016). "'In This Article, I Argue': An Analysis of Metatext in Research Article Introductions". Teaching English in the Two-Year College. 43 (4). ProQuest 1788220410.

20. ^ Khedri, Mohsen (2016). "Are we visible? An interdisciplinary data-based study of self-mention in research articles". Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics. 52 (3). doi:10.1515/psicl-2016-0017. S2CID 151678737.

21. ^ "College English: Virtues and Vices for Inquiring Authors" (PDF).

22. ^ Hoffmann, Roald (2002). "Writing (and Drawing) Chemistry". In Jonathan Monroe (ed.). Writing and Revising the Disciplines (PDF). Cornell University Press. pp. 29-53. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 January 2021.

23. ^ Kambhampati, Srinivas; Maini, Lalit (May-June 2019). "Formatting References for Scientific Manuscripts". Indian Journal of Orthopaedics. 53 (3): 381-383. doi:10.4103/ortho.IJOrtho_197_19. PMC 6501625. PMID 31080275.

24. ^ Banik, Gregory M.; Baysinger, Grace; Kamat, Prashant V.; Pienta, Norbert, eds. (January 2020). The ACS Guide to Scholarly Communication. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. doi:10.1021/acsguide. ISBN 978-0-8412-3586-1.

25. ^ Letourneau, Mary; Wright Sharp, Jennifer (October 2017). "AMS Style Guide" (PDF). AMS Style Guide Journals.

26. ^ "AIP Style Manual" (PDF). AIP Style Manual. 4. 1990.

27. Van Way, Charles W. (2007-12). "Writing a Scientific Paper". ^ Nutrition in Clinical Practice. 22 (6): 636-640. doi:10.1177/0115426507022006636. ISSN 0884-5336

28. ^ Pollock, Neal W. (2017-12). "Scientific Writing". a Wilderness & Environmental Medicine. 28 (4): 283-284. doi:10.1016/j.wem.2017.09.007b

29. Nileshwar, Anitha (2018). "Scientific writing". ^ Indian Journal of Respiratory Care. 7 (1): 1.

30. ^ Priestley, Joseph. The History and Present State of Electricity. 2 vols. London, 1767.

31. Medawar, P. (1964). Is the scientific paper a fraud? BBC talk. available at ^ https://www.weizmann.ac.il/mcb/UriAlon/sites/mcb.UriAlon/files/uploads/medawar.pdf Incorporated into Advice to a young scientist, Harper & Row, 1979.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Scientific writing is writing about science, with an implication that the writing is by scientists and for an audience that primarily includes peers-those with sufficient expertise to follow in detail.[1] (The similar term " science writing" instead tends to refer to writing about a scientific topic for a general audience; this could be by scientists and/or journalists, for example.)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
effective writing and publishing scientific papers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Planning to write a science article for publication? Use these tips from former judges of the prestigious Max Perutz Science Writing Award to ensure you write an engaging essay that communicates your ideas clearly and effectively.

Read

Learn what makes other writing good. By reading, you imbibe other writers' styles and techniques, mix them with your own abilities and creative stance, and end up with a style all of your own. Read Hemingway and Shakespeare. Read the Brontës and Virginia Woolf. Read features and news articles online and in newspapers and magazines.

Craft your words

The general rule for clear writing is: think about what you want to write before you want to write it and write it in the clearest way possible. Be sure to:

avoid excessive use of jargon: if you must use it, explain its meaning clearly

be original in your use of language and generally avoid clichés or slang (but remember that great writers do use clichés for particular effects, having thought about them carefully first)

avoid ugly, clumsy phrases and sentences all of the same length (never use a long word where a short word will do - If you can cut a word out, cut it out)

read your article through when you've finished it, and cut as many words as you can.

Start as you mean to go on

The beginning of your article is crucial. It must be a hook to grab the attention of the reader. If you haven't drawn in the reader during the first few sentences, you've lost them. Consider opening your article with:

an unusual, shocking or quirky fact

a fictional narrative that draws the reader in by placing them right in the middle of a scene that they can imagine (be sure to minimise irrelevant details - do not be flowery)

an intriguing question (how could a reader not resist finding out the answer by reading on?)

a quote, but not an overly long one (it's only a hook, not a walk-in wardrobe)

Or you could think of a completely original way to start. Whatever you choose, make sure your opening is relevant to the topic you're writing about, and not simply stuck on like a piece of lace.

Tell the story

So, what about the middle? As this exercise is writing about your research, the main part of your article should be exactly that.

Lead us through the story of the science

What do you actually do? What is the ultimate goal of the research? Is it controversial in any way? If so, you've got a tough job because justifying it is part of your mission. Essentially, why does your research matter?

Think about the ideas first

How do you explain the ideas when speaking to someone you know. Would they understand it? Would they even care? Is there an original way of explaining it? Do not pitch too high or include too much detail. Test it out on a friend.

Be careful with analogies

They must work. Avoid excessive metaphors and beware of mixing them. Be wary of using the word 'imagine'. If you are describing an analogy, the reader will imagine it without your instructing them to do it. Avoid anything too corny. For example, use puns with caution, except for headlines and subheadings, where puns can be effective.

Make it satisfying

The end of the article is important. It must leave the reader feeling satisfied: it's the end of the story even if it isn't the end of the research.

The ending can reflect ideas and themes within the article and is often a 'kicker', a kind of 'twist' which may be ironic or thoughtful, and make the reader want to know more. Read newspaper features for examples. Try not to end on a clichéd phrase.

Check your tone

Be careful to:

avoid making false claims about the value of your research or sensationalising it (for example, beware of saying that you are just a few years away from a 'breakthrough')

resist being melodramatic (have the confidence that your writing is good enough to convey the research in an accurate, yet entertaining, way)

shun a supercilious or self-righteous tone (are you making references to your being a scientist and how virtuous you are? If your article is good, we will know how your research is benefiting society and why).

Know your tools

Finally, and perhaps most crucially, do not neglect one of the most basic rules of style, which is to make sure you know how to use your tools. Know the importance of:

language - the flow of words and sentences, and the way you can use a black and white page to conjure up colourful ideas in a reader's mind

grammar and punctuation - they're the heart of the craft.

Do not make mistakes, because the reader may think you cannot use your tools, and not trust your finished product. Watch your commas. Understand the way sentences are constructed. Read a grammar book.

Break the rules

The last rule is very simple. You may break any of the rules mentioned here, although it helps to have understood them first. "It's not wise to violate rules until you know how to observe them," said T. S. Eliot. But when you know the rules, you can flout any convention and be as original and as crazy as you like.

You can take the words and use them as you would chemicals in a scientific experiment - mix them together and analyse the reaction. That is the beauty, the fun and the liberty of writing.

Read judges' feedback on previous entries to the Max Perutz Science Writing Award

Most of the articles submitted made good attempts at drawing the reader in with attention-grabbing first paragraphs. This is important because if you cannot get the reader's attention in the first place, they won't continue to read about why your research is important.

However, some articles failed to keep up with the tone they had introduced in the first paragraph, slipping back into using jargon or the kinds of phrases that you often find in scientific writing: 'signalling pathways', 'receptors', 'patient outcomes' etc. These are not phrases that are used in everyday language, so shouldn't be used without explanation.

Metaphors and similes are useful devices for getting complex scientific concepts across, and lots of last year's entrants used at least one device like this to explain an aspect of their research.

But remember to use metaphors and similes carefully, and make sure they aren't too specific (you want them to mean the same thing to each of your readers). Think twice about using an extended metaphor throughout an article - in some cases these worked really well, but in others they put people off.

Specifically, you should:

use the 'active' voice (do not write "I was able to see..." when you could write "I saw..." or "the cells were incubated" when you could write "I incubated the cells")

use first names rather than titles to help personalise the research

only include important and relevant information, as readers are restless and will stop reading if you include information that is important only to fellow scientists

avoid acronyms if at all possible - even if a protein is known as ABC2D among scientists, it is more appropriate and understandable to use a different name for a more general audience

use technical terms only sparingly and consistently, and provide explanations if necessary

be careful with punctuation (only use a semi-colon if you are sure it is appropriate and do not overuse commas)

break up your paragraphs, as it's hard work to read paragraphs of more than, say, 100 words (there's no hard and fast rule for word count in paragraphs or sentences but if in doubt, put in a break).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Planning to write a science article for publication? Use these tips from former judges of the prestigious Max Perutz Science Writing Award to ensure you write an engaging essay that communicates your ideas clearly and effectively.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Author : em-admin

Posted : 28 / 08 / 09

Ask most scientists, engineers and technologists why they got into the profession and they're unlikely to say it was because they love writing. But love it or hate it, writing is an essential part of a scientific career. Report writing skills are crucial to communicating your research, ideas and recommendations. Losing the gems of months of research in confusing, convoluted prose helps neither you nor your readers. The way you write can be more important that what you write. An instantly readable report will usually have more impact than one that is difficult to decipher.

Science doesn't exist in a vacuum. So if you cannot communicate effectively to colleagues and the general public, your work is likely to be perceived as less important. In fact, if you can't communicate what you do, you could argue that you might as well not do it in the first place.

Here are the top tips and techniques that can transform your written work:

1. Ask the right questions

Powerful writing starts from an ordered, clear structure. Begin ordering your ideas by asking yourself the questions: what? where? when? how? why? and who? When you know what you want to communicate, and why, you can then lay out your core idea first, and expand on it in the rest of the document. Always make sure you ask yourself the exact purpose of what you are writing. When you have a clear intent, you have a much better chance of crafting an effective document.

2. Avoid jargon where possible

Abbreviations are a great shortcut when you and your reader speak a common language. But don't forget that there may be acronyms and abbreviations that people outside your organisation or area of expertise just wouldn't know. This doesn't mean that you have to avoid jargon at all costs. Just be aware of your reader's knowledge and choose the words and phrases that you are certain they will understand. Most people overestimate how much their readers know and bombard them with too many technical words and phrases.

3. Focus on your reader

Do your readers really know everything about thermodynamics or mass transfer? Or are they more concerned with how the science affects the company's bottom line? Ask yourself the following questions so that you can tailor your information to your reader.

Who will read the document?

How much experience do they have of the subject?

How much do they know about it?

What is their likely attitude towards it?

How involved in the subject are they?

How interested are they in the subject?

4. Don't show off

In academia, the more knowledge, information and argument you display, the higher the marks. In the commercial world, only the most significant information is necessary. Summarising a wealth of related issues may at first appear to cement your expert status, but it doesn't help your reader. Managers often have several reports to read a day, so focus on becoming a solution provider.

5. Create a compelling opening paragraph

Research has shown that when it comes to focus, people remember the beginning and end of something, plus a high point in the middle. This is as true for reports as it is for holidays or feature films. So make sure that your conclusions and recommendations are in the summary. If you bury your recommendations in the middle, there's no guarantee that your readers will get that far.

6. Be confident

Say what you really mean and your readers will thank you for it. It can be a little disconcerting to write clearly and in plain English, especially if you come from an organisation that doesn't encourage having a definitive viewpoint. But it will help you to become recognised as a thought leader and means that your work reaches a much wider audience.

7. Learn how to KISS

Keep it Short and Simple! Avoid long flowery phrases and make sure your sentences contain a maximum of 15 to 20 words. Presenting information in short, manageable chunks also helps you to keep the reader with you, so stick to the principle of one idea per sentence. To paraphrase Einstein: Make things as simple as they are but no simpler.

8. Get active

Where possible, use the active voice rather than the passive one. Instead of writing, 'the reactions of various metals were tested,' write 'we tested the reactions of various metals'. Adding in the word 'we' makes the document more personal. Don't be afraid to use the word 'you' when writing reports for non-scientists. The idea is to engage the reader and active, personal language does just that.

9. Check for errors

Always proofread carefully by printing out your document and combing through it word for word. You cannot rely on your spellchecker to know the difference between palate and pallet, especially if you have it on the automated setting. Print it out first. And if possible, put your work aside for a day and come back to it with fresh eyes. It's likely that any errors will jump out at you more easily. Also check for punctuation and make sure that your structure is as effective as it can be.

10. Use a style guide

Grab a free copy of The Write Stuff to help you with the writing process. This 60-page guide contains the very essence of good writing.

How Emphasis helped scientists to write more clearly

One of Europe's leading pharmaceutical companies asked Emphasis to improve its scientists' report-writing skills. The problem? Many of their written reports were failing to communicate the results of their research and development work in a clear and concise way.

The training programme changed how the scientists approach, plan and structure their reports.

"Before the training programme, most people saw writing as an irritating distraction from their research and their reports had to be heavily edited. Now, there are fewer amendments," the medical director explains. "This has reinforced the lessons learned during the training, creating a positive cycle that has, in turn, promoted better writing throughout the company."

To find out how to write technical documents as quickly and efficiently as possible, see our technical writing course.

Robert Ashton is the Chief Executive of Emphasis.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Discover the key ways to make sure you communicate your technical content clearly and make an impact with your research, ideas and recommendations.

# data[].attributes.headline
Infographic: How to write better science papers

# data[].attributes.subject
Infographic: How to write better science papers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Infographic: How to write better science papers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tips for writing research articles people will want to read

# data[].attributes.headline
Scientific Writing Made Easy: A Step-by-Step Guide to Undergraduate Writing in the Biological Sciences

# data[].attributes.subject
Scientific Writing Made Easy: A Step-by-Step Guide to Undergraduate Writing in the Biological Sciences

# data[].attributes.headline
Duke Graduate School Scientific Writing Resource

# data[].attributes.subject
Duke Graduate School Scientific Writing Resource

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Why is writing important in science?

Writing is the most common form of scientific communication, yet scientists have a reputation for being poor writers. Why? One reason could be that writing is never really taught to scientists. Better writing will benefit your science career in several ways. Within the scientific community, improved communication leads to improved collaboration, easier access to cross-disciplinary knowledge, and faster, less painful training. Besides this, you will be able to communicate better not only with other researchers, but with the public, who funds your research. If scientists were better writers, the gap between the public and academy would shrink.

How can I use this resource?

The Scientific Writing Resource is online course material that teaches how to write effectively. The material is not about correctness (grammar, punctuation, etc), but about communicating what you intend to the reader. It can be used either in a science class or by individuals. It is intended for science students at the graduate level.

Instructors: Use the resource in a science class to dedicate a lecture or two to writing skills. For each lesson, there are 3 resources: principles (for a lecture), examples, and a worksheet (for assignment).

Individuals: You can go through the resource on your own. The lessons can be done in about 45 minutes each. Just read through the lessons and examples, and then try your hand on the worksheets.

Communicating Effectively

The goal of writing is communication. These lessons do not put forth absolute rules. If the intent of the writer is communicated, the writing was effective, regardless of rules kept or broken. Instead of rules, these lessons provide principles of communication and writing from the reader's persective. The ideas presented here are derived from many sources, notably including the philosophy of Joseph Williams and George Gopen. If you know what readers expect, then you can fill that expectation. Approaching writing like this will help you improve your written communication.

The key to success in writing lies in smart revision. At first, treat these as principles of revision rather than principles of writing. As you practice, they will naturally become integrated as you write.

This resource focuses on scientific writing, not science writing. What's the difference? Find out here: What is scientific writing?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Duke Graduate School Scientific Writing Resource

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Writing is the most common form of scientific communication, yet scientists have a reputation for being poor writers. Why? One reason could be that writing is never really taught to scientists. Better writing will benefit your science career in several ways.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This is part of a series of articles by Isabelle has co-authored over 30 research papers; she provides translation and consulting services for life scientists and enjoys turning data into engaging visuals. Karen provides editing services for scientists, mainly academics, who write in English when that is not their native language. Isabelle Berquin and Karen Tkaczyk, two trained scientists who moved into providing language services for scientists. Isabelle was a molecular biologist who worked in cancer research and Karen was a development chemist who worked in pharmaceuticals.
Few scientists go into their profession planning to be writers, but it's rare that you can progress in your career without writing about and publishing what you do. If your writing classes were non-existent or so long ago you remember nothing, here are a few principles to keep in mind for your next paper.

Who are you writing for?

Scientific writing may convey a story or an opinion and may include light-hearted elements, but it generally conveys information with an objective tone. The focus remains on the scientific content. Scientists explain their research and the potential applications to either their peers or a non-scientific audience. Knowing the intended audience is important for maintaining the appropriate register as you write. Obviously, in an academic context, articles are typically written for peers, and it is easy to determine the register. If you have to explain your work to the public, to publishers, to funders, tackle the text differently. For all of the above, keep your reader in mind as you write.

Your toolbox: style matters

Accuracy

Scientific writing transmits scientific information accurately. Accuracy is so important that the data are often much more important to your readers than the words. But let's make the reading experience pleasant and easy whenever we can. Let's tell a great story, knowing that readers will focus on measurable results and predictions.

Coherence
https://www.academic-englishuk.com/linking https://www.eliteediting.com.au/50-linking-words-to-use-in-academic-writing/
Scientific writing should be logical. Look at your subheadings and topic sentences and confirm that the ideas flow naturally. At the sentence level, check for any contradictions or repetitions. Edit ruthlessly if you find any! If you include figures and tables, make sure that the legends and charts are numbered, labeled, and formatted consistently. And then make sure that they are all mentioned in the text. Your readers will appreciate a logical path through the piece that includes clear wayfinders.

Transitions

Transitions connect sentences or paragraphs to help a text flow better or to present readers with a coherent picture. Some languages need more transitions than others, and odd transitions are a clear sign to readers that a non-native author wrote the text. It can be hard for writers to pick the best transitions for a particular situation when English isn't their first language.

Don't be scared of using the simplest conjunctions "and," "but," and "also" sometimes. The native ear is hard to beat on this topic, though you can read more on it in these resources, where the type of connector is categorized for the purpose you need.

Clarity - Plain Language and Plain Structure

Use plain, everyday words, not fancy words or jargon. Avoid long sentences (anything with more than 21 words in English). Split up, recast, and reorder thoughts for logical coherence. Can you turn a paragraph into six bullet points? No one reads a wall of block text as effectively as a well-designed document. The NIH website has resources to help with plain language writing.

Voice

There were a number of approaches in the literature.

The literature provided a number of approaches.

As a rule, use the active voice in English. Use the passive voice occasionally for variety, and for specific exceptions, for instance, when the subject is unknown, or you would prefer not to specify the subject. In the past, scientific writing required the use of the passive voice, but there is a movement among scientific writing authorities to reduce this, so the passive is now generally preferred only in a methods section. Active voice requires the use of strong action verbs. English-speaking readers like to know what the item does. That means they are looking for a verb, ideally a punchy one. The giveaway for passive voice and weak writing? "Be" verbs like are, is, was, were, be, being, and been. Try searching texts for "was done" and see how many you have to remove.

Concision

By "concise" we mean keeping your text as short as possible while including all the important information-the point is not brevity for brevity's sake. If you struggle with this principle, remember "user focus." Who wants an article to be longer than necessary? Wordiness obscures meaning and irritates readers.

Style guides abound on how to write more concisely, but here are a couple of quick practical tips for concision in English. Review your texts for "of" and recast to remove as many as possible (e.g., replace with possessives or noun pairs). Get rid of expletives. No, we're not talking about swear words, though that kind of expletive is not recommended in our context either! What we're talking about is expletive constructions, commonly used words and phrases that take up space in sentences but add no meaning. These often use "be" verbs. For instance, sentences that begin "There are," "There is," "It is," or "It was." You can usually rephrase a sentence to remove the portion that includes the "be" verb and make a more effective sentence, like this.
Look out for the other posts in this series by both Karen and Isabelle. Topics include common mistakes authors often make, style matters, language variants, software tools that can help you edit your texts, tips for better scientific writing in English, and tips on creating impactful visual elements. If these articles are of interest or you'd like us to cover a specific topic, leave us a comment!
Better writing, better success?

Less than optimal scientific writing is hardly rare. Editors often receive dense, noun-heavy texts. That may work fine or even be optimal in some languages, but in English it makes for a turgid read. What should you watch for? As an author, make sure your texts aren't full of clues that they were written by a non-native. Another article in this series goes into that in more depth.

If you would like to read more on this topic, we recommend The Scientist's Guide to Writing by Stephen B. Heard. It's not only clear-it's a pleasure to read. And as we conclude, let's note that here we've focused on how to write your articles. An accompanying piece will cover creating impactful visuals, so important for catching attention and showing clearly what a paragraph of text will never convey as effectively.

You may not have planned to be a writer, but paying attention to how you write will serve your scientific self well in the long run.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Simple Tips to Improve Your Scientific Writing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This is part of a series of articles by Isabelle Berquin and Karen Tkaczyk, two trained scientists who moved into providing language services for scientists. Isabelle was a molecular biologist who worked in cancer research and Karen was a development chemist who worked in pharmaceuticals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
The Writing Center * University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tips & Tools - The Writing Center * University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We welcome feedback about these handouts and suggestions for additional handouts. Please email us or call us with your ideas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
"scientific writing" "writing papers" journal author "how to write a research paper" "how to write a scientific paper" "science article" "scientific research...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This channel is where you can find expert guidance in scientific writing. Here, I share information and insights based on a 40-year career as author and reviewer. The content is for novices as well as those who have published but are seeking to improve.

# data[].attributes.headline
Making scientific writing painless (YouTube)

# data[].attributes.subject
Making scientific writing painless (YouTube)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ian Baldwin (Max Planck Institute): Making scientific writing painless

# data[].attributes.headline
How to Choose a Dissertation Topic (YouTube)

# data[].attributes.subject
How to Choose a Dissertation Topic (YouTube)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Choose a Dissertation Topic | The Research Process Beginners Guide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Share your videos with friends, family, and the world

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Teaching you the insider secrets of academia to make it work for YOU.