scientific research paper writing tips

Making your scientific discoveries understandable to others is one of the most important things you can do as a scientist. You might come up with brilliant ideas, design clever experiments, and make groundbreaking discoveries. But if you can’t explain your work to your fellow scientists, your career won’t move forward.

Back in the early 90s, during my time at the University of California in Irvine, my research led me to a paper citation that seemed relevant to my work. I went to great lengths to get a hold of that paper, which was written in English but not by a native English speaker. Unfortunately, I couldn’t understand it well enough to confirm if the cited information was accurate. I tried contacting the authors multiple times but got no response. As a result, I couldn’t reference their work in my own papers, even though it seemed relevant. Being a good writer is crucial for success in science. Speaking English fluently doesn’t necessarily mean you can write well, even for native speakers. Writing skills improve with practice and guidance. However, simply having experience or guidance won’t make you a better writer unless you put in the effort to write.

Tips to Improve your Scientific Writing

1. organize your thoughts, ideas, and actions in a logical manner.

Begin with sufficient background information to take your reader along the pathway from your observations to your hypothesis. Describe the background to appeal to a broad group of readers. Provide sufficient context to communicate the significance of your inquiry and experimental findings. Omit extraneous information so that the reader can obtain a clear picture. Group similar ideas together and state your ideas and thoughts concisely. Present ideas in a consistent manner throughout the manuscript. The most common structure of a scientific manuscript is the IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) format.

2. Provide clear descriptions

Repeat complex concepts as needed, explaining them from various angles. Begin with simplicity, advancing complexity as required for comprehension. Tailor your writing to your audience’s level of expertise, whether they understand specialized terms or require prior explanations. Keep your explanations straightforward.

3. Simplify your word choices

Utilize clear, straightforward language to ensure that both students and researchers, regardless of their field or English proficiency, can easily comprehend and engage with your research.

4. Write concisely

Note that this article mentions “ concise writing ” several times. Avoid lengthy or needless descriptions and paragraphs, as nobody values them.

5. Use passive and active voice appropriately

In science writing, it is important to know when to use passive and active voice. Using active voice makes your writing more natural, direct, and engaging, and you should employ it when discussing widely accepted findings. The Introduction section should primarily employ active voice because it narrates “what is.” However, when discussing the results of a particular study, it’s advisable to use passive voice. In the Methods and Results sections, passive voice should be employed to describe what you did and what you found. In the Discussion section, a mixture of passive and active voice is acceptable, but take care not to mix the 2 together in a single sentence.

6. Select the most appropriate word

Selecting the appropriate words can be challenging. The best words accurately capture what the author is trying to convey. If a word is not sufficiently precise, use a thesaurus to replace the word or phrase with a more appropriate word. Precise words allow for specific, clear, and accurate expression. While science writing differs from literature in that it does not need to be colorful, it should not be boring.

7. Broaden your vocabulary

Use clear, specific, and concrete words. Expand your vocabulary by reading in a broad range of fields and looking up terms you don’t know.

8. Avoid filler words

Filler words are unnecessary words that are vague and meaningless or do not add to the meaning or clarity of the sentence. Consider the following examples: “ it is ”, “ it was ”, “ there is ”, and “ there has been ”, “ it is important “, “ it is hypothesized that “, “ it was predicted that “, “ there is evidence suggesting that “, “ in order to ”, and “ there is a significant relationship “. All of these phrases can be replaced with more direct and clear language.  See our list of words and phrases to avoid here .

9. Read what you write

Ensure you vary sentence length to maintain reader engagement and avoid a monotonous rhythm. However, don’t create excessively long or convoluted sentences that might hinder the reader’s comprehension. To enhance readability, consider reading the manuscript aloud to yourself after taking a break or having someone else review it.

10. Optimize paragraph and sentence structure

Each paragraph should present a single unifying idea or concept. Extremely long paragraphs tend to distract or confuse readers. If longer paragraphs are necessary, alternate them with shorter paragraphs to provide balance and rhythm to your writing. A good sentence allows readers to obtain critical information with the least effort.

Poor sentence structure interferes with the flow. Keep modifiers close to the object they are modifying. Consider the following sentence: “ Systemic diseases that may affect joint function such as infection should be closely monitored. ” In this example, “such as infection” is misplaced, as it is not a joint function, but rather a systemic disease. The meaning is more clear in the revised sentence: “ Systemic diseases such as infection that may affect joint function should be closely monitored. ”

11. Use transitions to control the flow

Sentences and paragraphs should flow seamlessly. Place transitional phrases and sentences at the beginning and end of the paragraphs to help the reader move smoothly through the paper.

12. Word repetition

Avoid repetitive use of the same word or phrase; opt for a more descriptive alternative whenever possible. Ensure that you do not sacrifice precision for variability.  See our science-related Word Choice list here .

13. Improve readability with consistent formatting

Although in many cases it is no longer necessary to format your manuscript for a specific journal before peer review, you should pay attention to formatting for consistency. Use the same font size throughout; format headings consistently (e.g., bolded or not bolded, all uppercase or not, italicized or not); and references should be provided in an easy-to-follow, consistent format. Use appropriate subheadings in the Materials and Methods, and Results sections to help the reader quickly navigate your paper.

14. Use parallel construction to facilitate understanding

Your hypothesis, experimental measures, and results should be presented in the same order in the Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Tables. Words or phrases joined by coordinating conjunctions (and, but, for, nor, or, so, and yet) should have the same form.

15. Maintain consistent use of labels, abbreviations, and acronyms

Measures and variable/group names and labels should be consistent in both form and content throughout the text to avoid confusing the reader.

16. Use abbreviations and acronyms to aid the reader

Only use abbreviations/acronyms to help the reader more easily understand the paper. Follow the general rule of utilizing standard, accepted abbreviations/acronyms that appear at least 3 times in the main text of the paper. Always ask yourself, “Does this benefit me or the reader?” Exceptions might be applicable for widely-used abbreviations/acronyms where spelling them out might confuse the reader.

17. Minimize pronoun use for clarity

Make sure every pronoun is very clear, so the reader knows what it represents. In this case, being redundant may contribute to the clarity. Don’t refer to ‘this’ or ‘that’ because it makes the reader go back to the previous paragraph to see what ‘this’ or ‘that’ means. Also, limit or avoid the use of “former” and latter”.

18. Read your writing out loud

To assess the rhythm and identify repetitive words and phrases both within and between sentences and paragraphs, read your final paper aloud. Frequently, you will encounter unnecessary words that can be removed or substituted with more suitable alternatives.

Remember, your writing is your chance to show the scientific world who you are. You want to present a scholarly, clear, well-written description of your interests, ideas, results, and interpretations to encourage dialogue between scientists. Change your goal from that of simply publishing your manuscript to that of publishing an interesting manuscript that encourages discussion and citation, and inspires additional questions and hypotheses due to its fundamental clarity to the reader.

Want MORE Writing Tips?

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Email (required) *

Recent Articles

Enhancing Research Efficiency: Strategies for Collaboration, Data Utilization, and High-Impact Publications

Discover key strategies to boost your scientific research efficiency. Learn how streamline your research process in this 2 min read.

Leveraging Social Media for Research: Applications, Benefits, Challenges, and Future Potential

Discover strategies to leverage social media for research, enhancing visibility, collaboration, and engagement in the scientific community. 1 min read.

The Role of Social Media for Scientists

Explore the crucial role of social media for scientists in enhancing communication, collaboration, and public engagement in today’s digital age. 1 minute read.

Need Help With Your Writing?

At SciTechEdit, we are committed to delivering top-notch science editing services to enhance the impact and clarity of your research. We understand the importance of effective communication in the scientific community, and our team of experienced editors is here to help you refine and elevate your scientific manuscripts.

Spring & Summer 2024 Admissions Open Now. Sign up for upcoming live information sessions here .

How to Write a Research Paper

Undergrads often write research papers each semester, causing stress. Yet, it’s simpler than believing if you know how to write a research paper . Divide the task, get tips, a plan, and tools for an outstanding paper. Simplify research, writing, topic choice, and illustration use!

A research paper is an academic document that involves deep, independent research to offer analysis, interpretation, and argument. Unlike academic essays, research papers are lengthier and more detailed, aiming to evaluate your writing and scholarly research abilities. To write one, you must showcase expertise in your subject, interact with diverse sources, and provide a unique perspective to the discussion. 

Research papers are a foundational element of contemporary science and the most efficient means of disseminating knowledge throughout a broad network. Nonetheless, individuals usually encounter research papers during their education; they are frequently employed in college courses to assess a student’s grasp of a specific field or their aptitude for research. 

Given their significance, research papers adopt a research paper format – a formal, unadorned style that eliminates any subjective influence from the writing. Scientists present their discoveries straightforwardly, accompanied by relevant supporting proof, enabling other researchers to integrate the paper into their investigations.

This guide leads you through every steps to write a research paper , from grasping your task to refining your ultimate draft and will teach you how to write a research paper.

Understanding The Research Paper

A research paper is a meticulously structured document that showcases the outcomes of an inquiry, exploration, or scrutiny undertaken on a specific subject. It embodies a formal piece of academic prose that adds novel information, perspectives, or interpretations to a particular domain of study. Typically authored by scholars, researchers, scientists, or students as part of their academic or professional pursuits, these papers adhere to a well-defined format. This research paper format encompasses an introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion. 

The introduction provides context and outlines the study’s significance, while the literature review encapsulates existing research and situates the study within the broader academic discourse. The methodology section elucidates the research process, encompassing data collection and analysis techniques. Findings are presented in the results section, often complemented by graphical and statistical representations. Interpretation of findings, implications, and connection to existing knowledge transpire in the discussion section. 

Ultimately, the conclusion encapsulates pivotal discoveries and their wider import.

Research papers wield immense significance in advancing knowledge across diverse disciplines, enabling researchers to disseminate findings, theories, and revelations to a broader audience. Before publication in academic journals or presentations at conferences, these papers undergo a stringent peer review process conducted by domain experts, ensuring their integrity, precision, and worth.

Academic and non-academic research papers diverge across several dimensions. Academic papers are crafted for scholarly circles to expand domain knowledge and theories. They maintain a formal, objective tone and heavily rely on peer-reviewed sources for credibility. In contrast, non-academic papers, employing a more flexible writing style, target a broader audience or specific practical goals. These papers might incorporate persuasive language, anecdotes, and various sources beyond academia. While academic papers rigorously adhere to structured formats and established citation styles, non-academic papers prioritize practicality, adapting their structure and citation methods to suit the intended readership.

The purpose of a research paper revolves around offering fresh insights, knowledge, or interpretations within a specific field. This formal document serves as a conduit for scholars, researchers, scientists, and students to communicate their investigative findings and actively contribute to the ongoing academic discourse.

Research Paper Writing Process – How To Write a Good Research Paper

Selecting a suitable research topic .

Your initial task is to thoroughly review the assignment and carefully absorb the writing prompt’s details. Pay particular attention to technical specifications like length, formatting prerequisites (such as single- vs. double-spacing, indentation, etc.), and the required citation style. Also, pay attention to specifics, including an abstract or a cover page.

Once you’ve a clear understanding of the assignment, the subsequent steps to write a research paper are aligned with the conventional writing process. However, remember that research papers have rules, adding some extra considerations to the process.

When given some assignment freedom, the crucial task of choosing a topic rests on you. Despite its apparent simplicity, this choice sets the foundation for your entire research paper, shaping its direction. The primary factor in picking a research paper topic is ensuring it has enough material to support it. Your chosen topic should provide ample data and complexity for a thorough discussion. However, it’s important to avoid overly broad subjects and focus on specific ones that cover all relevant information without gaps. Yet, approach topic selection more slowly; choosing something that genuinely interests you is still valuable. Aim for a topic that meets both criteria—delivering substantial content while maintaining engagement.

Conducting Thorough Research 

Commence by delving into your research early to refine your topic and shape your thesis statement. Swift engagement with available research aids in dispelling misconceptions and unveils optimal paths and strategies to gather more material. Typically, research sources can be located either online or within libraries. When navigating online sources, exercise caution and opt for reputable outlets such as scientific journals or academic papers. Specific search engines, outlined below in the Tools and Resources section, exclusively enable exploring accredited sources and academic databases.

While pursuing information, it’s essential to differentiate between primary and secondary sources. Primary sources entail firsthand accounts, encompassing published articles or autobiographies, while secondary sources, such as critical reviews or secondary biographies, are more distanced. Skimming sources instead of reading each part proves more efficient during the research phase. If a source shows promise, set it aside for more in-depth reading later. Doing so prevents you from investing excessive time in sources that won’t contribute substantively to your work. You should present a literature review detailing your references and submit them for validation in certain instances. 

Organizing And Structuring The Research Paper

According to the research paper format , an outline for a research paper is a catalogue of essential topics, arguments, and evidence you intend to incorporate. These elements are divided into sections with headings, offering a preliminary overview of the paper’s structure before commencing the writing process. Formulating a structural outline can significantly enhance writing efficiency, warranting an investment of time to establish one.

Start by generating a list encompassing crucial categories and subtopics—a preliminary outline. Reflect on the amassed information while gathering supporting evidence, pondering the most effective means of segregation and categorization.

Once a discussion list is compiled, deliberate on the optimal information presentation sequence and identify related subtopics that should be placed adjacent. Consider if any subtopic loses coherence when presented out of order. Adopting a chronological arrangement can be suitable if the information follows a straightforward trajectory.

Given the potential complexity of research papers, consider breaking down the outline into paragraphs. This aids in maintaining organization when dealing with copious information and provides better control over the paper’s progression. Rectifying structural issues during the outline phase is preferable to addressing them after writing.

Remember to incorporate supporting evidence within the outline. Since there’s likely a substantial amount to include, outlining helps prevent overlooking crucial elements.

Writing The Introduction

According to the research paper format , the introduction of a research paper must address three fundamental inquiries: What, why, and how? Upon completing the introduction, the reader should clearly understand the paper’s subject matter, its relevance, and the approach you’ll use to construct your arguments.

What? Offer precise details regarding the paper’s topic, provide context, and elucidate essential terminology or concepts.

Why? This constitutes the most crucial yet challenging aspect of the introduction. Endeavour to furnish concise responses to the subsequent queries: What novel information or insights do you present? Which significant matters does your essay assist in defining or resolving?

How? To provide the reader with a preview of the paper’s forthcoming content, the introduction should incorporate a “guide” outlining the upcoming discussions. This entails briefly outlining the paper’s principal components in chronological sequence.

Developing The Main Body 

One of the primary challenges that many writers grapple with is effectively organizing the wealth of information they wish to present in their papers. This is precisely why an outline can be an invaluable tool. However, it’s essential to recognize that while an outline provides a roadmap, the writing process allows flexibility in determining the order in which information and arguments are introduced.

Maintaining cohesiveness throughout the paper involves anchoring your writing to the thesis statement and topic sentences. Here’s how to ensure a well-structured paper:

• Alignment with Thesis Statement: Regularly assess whether your topic sentences correspond with the central thesis statement. This ensures that your arguments remain on track and directly contribute to the overarching message you intend to convey.
• Consistency and Logical Flow: Review your topic sentences concerning one another. Do they follow a logical order that guides the reader through a coherent narrative? Ensuring a seamless flow from one topic to another helps maintain engagement and comprehension.
• Supporting Sentence Alignment: Each sentence within a paragraph should align with the topic sentence of that paragraph. This alignment reinforces the central idea, preventing tangential or disjointed discussions.

Additionally, identify paragraphs that cover similar content. While some overlap might be inevitable, it’s essential to approach shared topics from different angles, offering fresh insights and perspectives. Creating these nuanced differences helps present a well-rounded exploration of the subject matter.

An often-overlooked aspect of effective organization is the art of crafting smooth transitions. Transitions between sentences, paragraphs, and larger sections are the glue that holds your paper together. They guide the reader through the progression of ideas, enhancing clarity and creating a seamless reading experience.

Ultimately, while the struggle to organize information is accurate, employing these strategies not only aids in addressing the challenge but also contributes to the overall quality and impact of your writing.

Crafting A Strong Conclusion 

The purpose of the research paper’s conclusion is to guide your reader out of the realm of the paper’s argument, leaving them with a sense of closure.

Trace the paper’s trajectory, underscoring how all the elements converge to validate your thesis statement. Impart a sense of completion by ensuring the reader comprehends the resolution of the issues introduced in the paper’s introduction.

In addition, you can explore the broader implications of your argument, outline your paper’s contributions to future students studying the subject, and propose questions that your argument raises—ones that might not be addressed in the paper itself. However, it’s important to avoid:

• Introducing new arguments or crucial information that wasn’t covered earlier.
• Extending the conclusion unnecessarily.
• Employing common phrases that signal the decision (e.g., “In conclusion”).

By adhering to these guidelines, your conclusion can serve as a fitting and impactful conclusion to your research paper, leaving a lasting impression on your readers.

Refining The Research Paper

• Editing And Proofreading 

Eliminate unnecessary verbiage and extraneous content. In tandem with the comprehensive structure of your paper, focus on individual words, ensuring your language is robust. Verify the utilization of active voice rather than passive voice, and confirm that your word selection is precise and tangible.

The passive voice, exemplified by phrases like “I opened the door,” tends to convey hesitation and verbosity. In contrast, the active voice, as in “I opened the door,” imparts strength and brevity.

Each word employed in your paper should serve a distinct purpose. Strive to eschew the inclusion of surplus words solely to occupy space or exhibit sophistication.

For instance, the statement “The author uses pathos to appeal to readers’ emotions” is superior to the alternative “The author utilizes pathos to appeal to the emotional core of those who read the passage.”

Engage in thorough proofreading to rectify spelling, grammatical, and formatting inconsistencies. Once you’ve refined the structure and content of your paper, address any typographical and grammatical inaccuracies. Taking a break from your paper before proofreading can offer a new perspective.

Enhance error detection by reading your essay aloud. This not only aids in identifying mistakes but also assists in evaluating the flow. If you encounter sections that seem awkward during this reading, consider making necessary adjustments to enhance the overall coherence.

• Formatting And Referencing 

Citations are pivotal in distinguishing research papers from informal nonfiction pieces like personal essays. They serve the dual purpose of substantiating your data and establishing a connection between your research paper and the broader scientific community. Given their significance, citations are subject to precise formatting regulations; however, the challenge lies in the existence of multiple sets of rules.

It’s crucial to consult the assignment’s instructions to determine the required formatting style. Generally, academic research papers adhere to either of two formatting styles for source citations:

• MLA (Modern Language Association)
• APA (American Psychological Association)

Moreover, aside from MLA and APA styles, occasional demands might call for adherence to CMOS (The Chicago Manual of Style), AMA (American Medical Association), and IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) formats.

Initially, citations might appear intricate due to their numerous regulations and specific details. However, once you become adept at them, citing sources accurately becomes almost second nature. It’s important to note that each formatting style provides detailed guidelines for citing various sources, including photographs, websites, speeches, and YouTube videos.

Tips For Writing An Effective Research Paper 

By following these research paper writing tips , you’ll be well-equipped to create a well-structured, well-researched, and impactful research paper:

• Select a Clear and Manageable Topic: Choose a topic that is specific and focused enough to be thoroughly explored within the scope of your paper.
• Conduct In-Depth Research: Gather information from reputable sources such as academic journals, books, and credible websites. Take thorough notes to keep track of your sources.
• Create a Strong Thesis Statement: Craft a clear and concise thesis statement that outlines the main argument or purpose of your paper.
• Develop a Well-Structured Outline: Organize your ideas into a logical order by creating an outline that outlines the main sections and their supporting points.
• Compose a Captivating Introduction: Hook the reader with an engaging introduction that provides background information and introduces the thesis statement.
• Provide Clear and Relevant Evidence: Support your arguments with reliable and relevant evidence, such as statistics, examples, and expert opinions.
• Maintain Consistent Tone and Style: Keep a consistent tone and writing style throughout the paper, adhering to the formatting guidelines of your chosen citation style.
• Craft Coherent Paragraphs: Each paragraph should focus on a single idea or point, and transitions should smoothly guide the reader from one idea to the next.
• Use Active Voice: Write in the active voice to make your writing more direct and engaging.
• Revise and Edit Thoroughly: Proofread your paper for grammatical errors, spelling mistakes, and sentence structure. Revise for clarity and coherence.
• Seek Peer Feedback: Have a peer or instructor review your paper for feedback and suggestions.
• Cite Sources Properly: Accurately cite all sources using the required citation style (e.g., MLA, APA) to avoid plagiarism and give credit to original authors.
• Be Concise and Avoid Redundancy: Strive for clarity by eliminating unnecessary words and redundancies.
• Conclude Effectively: Summarize your main points and restate your thesis in the conclusion. Provide a sense of closure without introducing new ideas.
• Stay Organized: Keep track of your sources, notes, and drafts to ensure a structured and organized approach to the writing process.
• Proofread with Fresh Eyes: Take a break before final proofreading to review your paper with a fresh perspective, helping you catch any overlooked errors.
• Edit for Clarity: Ensure that your ideas are conveyed clearly and that your arguments are easy to follow.
• Ask for Feedback: Don’t hesitate to ask for feedback from peers, instructors, or writing centers to improve your paper further.

In conclusion, we’ve explored the essential steps to write a research paper . From selecting a focused topic to mastering the intricacies of citations, we’ve navigated through the key elements of this process.

It’s vital to recognize that adhering to the research paper writing tips is not merely a suggestion, but a roadmap to success. Each stage contributes to the overall quality and impact of your paper. By meticulously following these steps, you ensure a robust foundation for your research, bolster your arguments, and present your findings with clarity and conviction.

As you embark on your own research paper journey, I urge you to put into practice the techniques and insights shared in this guide. Don’t shy away from investing time in organization, thorough research, and precise writing. Embrace the challenge, for it’s through this process that your ideas take shape and your voice is heard within the academic discourse.

Remember, every exceptional research paper begins with a single step. And with each step you take, your ability to articulate complex ideas and contribute to your field of study grows. So, go ahead – apply these tips, refine your skills, and witness your research papers evolve into compelling narratives that inspire, inform, and captivate.

In the grand tapestry of academia, your research paper becomes a thread of insight, woven into the larger narrative of human knowledge. By embracing the writing process and nurturing your unique perspective, you become an integral part of this ever-expanding tapestry.

Happy writing, and may your research papers shine brightly, leaving a lasting mark on both your readers and the world of scholarship.

Related Posts

5 Free Virtual Research Opportunities For High School Students

Our Exceptional Alumni: College Admission Results 2020-2023

High School Student Researcher Neer on Constructing a 4 Color Screen Behind a Wormhole to Understand its Detection in Deep Space

High School Student Researcher Katerina’s Paper on the Racialization of Migration Accepted and Published at the Occidental College Critical Theory & Social Justice Undergraduate Research Journal

ChatGPT in Academia: A Boon or a Bane

High School Student Researcher Surya on How Does News Sentiment Affect Propagation on Twitter?

Download Programme Prospectus

• Programme structure
• Research course catalogue
• Professor biographies
• Tuition and Scholarship

Start Your Application

Cambridge Future Scholar (Summer 24)

Pre-application is OPEN

Official Admissions Open & Prospectus Release: April 1

Early Admissions Deadline: May 1

Regular Admissions Deadline: May 15

Rolling Admissions.

1-on-1 Research Mentorship Admission is open all year.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Research paper

How to Write a Research Paper | A Beginner's Guide

A research paper is a piece of academic writing that provides analysis, interpretation, and argument based on in-depth independent research.

Research papers are similar to academic essays , but they are usually longer and more detailed assignments, designed to assess not only your writing skills but also your skills in scholarly research. Writing a research paper requires you to demonstrate a strong knowledge of your topic, engage with a variety of sources, and make an original contribution to the debate.

This step-by-step guide takes you through the entire writing process, from understanding your assignment to proofreading your final draft.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

Understand the assignment, choose a research paper topic, conduct preliminary research, develop a thesis statement, create a research paper outline, write a first draft of the research paper, write the introduction, write a compelling body of text, write the conclusion, the second draft, the revision process, research paper checklist, free lecture slides.

Completing a research paper successfully means accomplishing the specific tasks set out for you. Before you start, make sure you thoroughly understanding the assignment task sheet:

• Read it carefully, looking for anything confusing you might need to clarify with your professor.
• Identify the assignment goal, deadline, length specifications, formatting, and submission method.
• Make a bulleted list of the key points, then go back and cross completed items off as you’re writing.

Carefully consider your timeframe and word limit: be realistic, and plan enough time to research, write, and edit.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

There are many ways to generate an idea for a research paper, from brainstorming with pen and paper to talking it through with a fellow student or professor.

You can try free writing, which involves taking a broad topic and writing continuously for two or three minutes to identify absolutely anything relevant that could be interesting.

You can also gain inspiration from other research. The discussion or recommendations sections of research papers often include ideas for other specific topics that require further examination.

Once you have a broad subject area, narrow it down to choose a topic that interests you, m eets the criteria of your assignment, and i s possible to research. Aim for ideas that are both original and specific:

• A paper following the chronology of World War II would not be original or specific enough.
• A paper on the experience of Danish citizens living close to the German border during World War II would be specific and could be original enough.

Note any discussions that seem important to the topic, and try to find an issue that you can focus your paper around. Use a variety of sources , including journals, books, and reliable websites, to ensure you do not miss anything glaring.

Do not only verify the ideas you have in mind, but look for sources that contradict your point of view.

• Is there anything people seem to overlook in the sources you research?
• Are there any heated debates you can address?
• Do you have a unique take on your topic?
• Have there been some recent developments that build on the extant research?

In this stage, you might find it helpful to formulate some research questions to help guide you. To write research questions, try to finish the following sentence: “I want to know how/what/why…”

A thesis statement is a statement of your central argument — it establishes the purpose and position of your paper. If you started with a research question, the thesis statement should answer it. It should also show what evidence and reasoning you’ll use to support that answer.

The thesis statement should be concise, contentious, and coherent. That means it should briefly summarize your argument in a sentence or two, make a claim that requires further evidence or analysis, and make a coherent point that relates to every part of the paper.

You will probably revise and refine the thesis statement as you do more research, but it can serve as a guide throughout the writing process. Every paragraph should aim to support and develop this central claim.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing - try for free!

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Try for free

A research paper outline is essentially a list of the key topics, arguments, and evidence you want to include, divided into sections with headings so that you know roughly what the paper will look like before you start writing.

A structure outline can help make the writing process much more efficient, so it’s worth dedicating some time to create one.

Your first draft won’t be perfect — you can polish later on. Your priorities at this stage are as follows:

• Maintaining forward momentum — write now, perfect later.
• Paying attention to clear organization and logical ordering of paragraphs and sentences, which will help when you come to the second draft.
• Expressing your ideas as clearly as possible, so you know what you were trying to say when you come back to the text.

You do not need to start by writing the introduction. Begin where it feels most natural for you — some prefer to finish the most difficult sections first, while others choose to start with the easiest part. If you created an outline, use it as a map while you work.

Do not delete large sections of text. If you begin to dislike something you have written or find it doesn’t quite fit, move it to a different document, but don’t lose it completely — you never know if it might come in useful later.

Paragraph structure

Paragraphs are the basic building blocks of research papers. Each one should focus on a single claim or idea that helps to establish the overall argument or purpose of the paper.

Example paragraph

George Orwell’s 1946 essay “Politics and the English Language” has had an enduring impact on thought about the relationship between politics and language. This impact is particularly obvious in light of the various critical review articles that have recently referenced the essay. For example, consider Mark Falcoff’s 2009 article in The National Review Online, “The Perversion of Language; or, Orwell Revisited,” in which he analyzes several common words (“activist,” “civil-rights leader,” “diversity,” and more). Falcoff’s close analysis of the ambiguity built into political language intentionally mirrors Orwell’s own point-by-point analysis of the political language of his day. Even 63 years after its publication, Orwell’s essay is emulated by contemporary thinkers.

Citing sources

It’s also important to keep track of citations at this stage to avoid accidental plagiarism . Each time you use a source, make sure to take note of where the information came from.

You can use our free citation generators to automatically create citations and save your reference list as you go.

APA Citation Generator MLA Citation Generator

The research paper introduction should address three questions: What, why, and how? After finishing the introduction, the reader should know what the paper is about, why it is worth reading, and how you’ll build your arguments.

What? Be specific about the topic of the paper, introduce the background, and define key terms or concepts.

Why? This is the most important, but also the most difficult, part of the introduction. Try to provide brief answers to the following questions: What new material or insight are you offering? What important issues does your essay help define or answer?

How? To let the reader know what to expect from the rest of the paper, the introduction should include a “map” of what will be discussed, briefly presenting the key elements of the paper in chronological order.

The major struggle faced by most writers is how to organize the information presented in the paper, which is one reason an outline is so useful. However, remember that the outline is only a guide and, when writing, you can be flexible with the order in which the information and arguments are presented.

One way to stay on track is to use your thesis statement and topic sentences . Check:

• topic sentences against the thesis statement;
• topic sentences against each other, for similarities and logical ordering;
• and each sentence against the topic sentence of that paragraph.

Be aware of paragraphs that seem to cover the same things. If two paragraphs discuss something similar, they must approach that topic in different ways. Aim to create smooth transitions between sentences, paragraphs, and sections.

The research paper conclusion is designed to help your reader out of the paper’s argument, giving them a sense of finality.

Trace the course of the paper, emphasizing how it all comes together to prove your thesis statement. Give the paper a sense of finality by making sure the reader understands how you’ve settled the issues raised in the introduction.

You might also discuss the more general consequences of the argument, outline what the paper offers to future students of the topic, and suggest any questions the paper’s argument raises but cannot or does not try to answer.

You should not :

• Offer new arguments or essential information
• Take up any more space than necessary
• Begin with stock phrases that signal you are ending the paper (e.g. “In conclusion”)

There are four main considerations when it comes to the second draft.

• Check how your vision of the paper lines up with the first draft and, more importantly, that your paper still answers the assignment.
• Identify any assumptions that might require (more substantial) justification, keeping your reader’s perspective foremost in mind. Remove these points if you cannot substantiate them further.
• Be open to rearranging your ideas. Check whether any sections feel out of place and whether your ideas could be better organized.
• If you find that old ideas do not fit as well as you anticipated, you should cut them out or condense them. You might also find that new and well-suited ideas occurred to you during the writing of the first draft — now is the time to make them part of the paper.

The goal during the revision and proofreading process is to ensure you have completed all the necessary tasks and that the paper is as well-articulated as possible. You can speed up the proofreading process by using the AI proofreader .

Global concerns

• Confirm that your paper completes every task specified in your assignment sheet.
• Check for logical organization and flow of paragraphs.
• Check paragraphs against the introduction and thesis statement.

Fine-grained details

Check the content of each paragraph, making sure that:

• each sentence helps support the topic sentence.
• no unnecessary or irrelevant information is present.
• all technical terms your audience might not know are identified.

Next, think about sentence structure , grammatical errors, and formatting . Check that you have correctly used transition words and phrases to show the connections between your ideas. Look for typos, cut unnecessary words, and check for consistency in aspects such as heading formatting and spellings .

Finally, you need to make sure your paper is correctly formatted according to the rules of the citation style you are using. For example, you might need to include an MLA heading  or create an APA title page .

Scribbr’s professional editors can help with the revision process with our award-winning proofreading services.

Discover our paper editing service

Checklist: Research paper

I have followed all instructions in the assignment sheet.

My introduction presents my topic in an engaging way and provides necessary background information.

My introduction presents a clear, focused research problem and/or thesis statement .

My paper is logically organized using paragraphs and (if relevant) section headings .

Each paragraph is clearly focused on one central idea, expressed in a clear topic sentence .

Each paragraph is relevant to my research problem or thesis statement.

I have used appropriate transitions  to clarify the connections between sections, paragraphs, and sentences.

My conclusion provides a concise answer to the research question or emphasizes how the thesis has been supported.

My conclusion shows how my research has contributed to knowledge or understanding of my topic.

My conclusion does not present any new points or information essential to my argument.

I have provided an in-text citation every time I refer to ideas or information from a source.

I have included a reference list at the end of my paper, consistently formatted according to a specific citation style .

I have thoroughly revised my paper and addressed any feedback from my professor or supervisor.

I have followed all formatting guidelines (page numbers, headers, spacing, etc.).

You've written a great paper. Make sure it's perfect with the help of a Scribbr editor!

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

Is this article helpful?

Other students also liked.

• Writing a Research Paper Introduction | Step-by-Step Guide
• Writing a Research Paper Conclusion | Step-by-Step Guide
• Research Paper Format | APA, MLA, & Chicago Templates

More interesting articles

• Academic Paragraph Structure | Step-by-Step Guide & Examples
• Checklist: Writing a Great Research Paper
• How to Create a Structured Research Paper Outline | Example
• How to Write a Discussion Section | Tips & Examples
• How to Write Recommendations in Research | Examples & Tips
• How to Write Topic Sentences | 4 Steps, Examples & Purpose
• Research Paper Appendix | Example & Templates
• Research Paper Damage Control | Managing a Broken Argument
• What Is a Theoretical Framework? | Guide to Organizing

Unlimited Academic AI-Proofreading

✔ Document error-free in 5minutes ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

• Press Releases
• Publications
• Photonics Focus

10 Simple Steps to Writing a Scientific Paper

At any given time, Andrea Armani ’s lab at the University of Southern California has up to 15 PhD students, a couple of postdocs, nine undergrads, and an occasional high school student, all busy developing new materials for diagnostic and telecommunications devices.

When conducting scientific research, Armani believes it’s important to test a hypothesis—not prove it. She recruits students who are willing to adopt that “testing” mentality, and are excited to explore the unknown. “I want them to push themselves a little bit, push the field a little bit, and not be afraid to fail,” she says. “And, know that even if they fail, they can still learn something from it.”

Armani often coaches students through the process of writing their first scientific paper. Her 10-step formula for writing a scientific paper could be useful to anyone who has concluded a study and feels the dread of the blank page looming.

1. Write a Vision Statement

What is the key message of your paper? Be able to articulate it in one sentence, because it's a sentence you'll come back to a few times throughout the paper. Think of your paper as a press release: what would the subhead be? If you can't articulate the key discovery or accomplishment in a single sentence, then you're not ready to write a paper.

The vision statement should guide your next important decision: where are you submitting? Every journal has a different style and ordering of sections. Making this decision before you write a single word will save you a lot of time later on. Once you choose a journal, check the website for requirements with regards to formatting, length limits, and figures.

2. Don't Start at the Beginning

Logically, it makes sense to start a paper with the abstract, or, at least, the introduction. Don't. You often end up telling a completely different story than the one you thought you were going to tell. If you start with the introduction, by the time everything else is written, you will likely have to rewrite both sections.

3. Storyboard the Figures

Figures are the best place to start, because they form the backbone of your paper. Unlike you, the reader hasn't been living this research for a year or more. So, the first figure should inspire them to want to learn about your discovery.

A classic organizational approach used by writers is "storyboarding" where all figures are laid out on boards. This can be done using software like PowerPoint, Prezi, or Keynote. One approach is to put the vision statement on the first slide, and all of your results on subsequent slides. To start, simply include all data, without concern for order or importance. Subsequent passes can evaluate consolidation of data sets (e.g., forming panel figures) and relative importance (e.g., main text vs. supplement). The figures should be arranged in a logical order to support your hypothesis statement. Notably, this order may or may not be the order in which you took the data. If you're missing data, it should become obvious at this point.

4. Write the Methods Section

Of all the sections, the methods section is simultaneously the easiest and the most important section to write accurately. Any results in your paper should be replicable based on the methods section, so if you've developed an entirely new experimental method, write it out in excruciating detail, including setup, controls, and protocols, also manufacturers and part numbers, if appropriate. If you're building on a previous study, there's no need to repeat all of those details; that's what references are for.

One common mistake when writing a methods section is the inclusion of results. The methods section is simply a record of what you did.

The methods section is one example of where knowing the journal is important. Some journals integrate the methods section in between the introduction and the results; other journals place the methods section at the end of the article. Depending on the location of the methods section, the contents of the results and discussion section may vary slightly.

5. Write the Results and Discussion Section

In a few journals, results and discussion are separate sections. However, the trend is to merge these two sections. This section should form the bulk of your paper-by storyboarding your figures, you already have an outline!

A good place to start is to write a few paragraphs about each figure, explaining: 1. the result (this should be void of interpretation), 2. the relevance of the result to your hypothesis statement (interpretation is beginning to appear), and 3. the relevance to the field (this is completely your opinion). Whenever possible, you should be quantitative and specific, especially when comparing to prior work. Additionally, any experimental errors should be calculated and error bars should be included on experimental results along with replicate analysis.

You can use this section to help readers understand how your research fits in the context of other ongoing work and explain how your study adds to the body of knowledge. This section should smoothly transition into the conclusion.

6. Write the Conclusion

In the conclusion, summarize everything you have already written. Emphasize the most important findings from your study and restate why they matter. State what you learned and end with the most important thing you want the reader to take away from the paper-again, your vision statement. From the conclusion, a reader should be able to understand the gist of your whole study, including your results and their significance.

7. Now Write the Introduction

The introduction sets the stage for your article. If it was a fictional story, the introduction would be the exposition, where the characters, setting, time period, and main conflict are introduced.

Scientific papers follow a similar formula. The introduction gives a view of your research from 30,000 feet: it defines the problem in the context of a larger field; it reviews what other research groups have done to move forward on the problem (the literature review); and it lays out your hypothesis, which may include your expectations about what the study will contribute to the body of knowledge. The majority of your references will be located in the introduction.

8. Assemble References

The first thing that any new writer should do is pick a good electronic reference manager. There are many free ones available, but often research groups (or PIs) have a favorite one. Editing will be easier if everyone is using the same manager.

References serve multiple roles in a manuscript:

1) To enable a reader to get more detailed information on a topic that has been previously published. For example: "The device was fabricated using a standard method." You need to reference that method. One common mistake is to reference a paper that doesn't contain the protocol, resulting in readers being sent down a virtual rabbit hole in search of the protocol.

2) To support statements that are not common knowledge or may be contentious. For example: "Previous work has shown that vanilla is better than chocolate." You need a reference here. Frequently, there are several papers that could be used, and it is up to you to choose.

3) To recognize others working in the field, such as those who came before you and laid the groundwork for your work as well as more recent discoveries. The selection of these papers is where you need to be particularly conscientious. Don't get in the habit of citing the same couple of papers from the same couple of groups. New papers are published every day-literally. You need to make sure that your references include both foundational papers as well as recent works.

9. Write the Abstract

The abstract is the elevator pitch for your article. Most abstracts are 150–300 words, which translates to approximately 10–20 sentences. Like any good pitch, it should describe the importance of the field, the challenge that your research addresses, how your research solves the challenge, and its potential future impact. It should include any key quantitative metrics. It is important to remember that abstracts are included in search engine results.

10. The Title Comes Last

The title should capture the essence of the paper. If someone was interested in your topic, what phrase or keywords would they type into a search engine? Make sure those words are included in your title.

Andrea Martin Armani is an SPIE Fellow and the Ray Irani Chair in Engineering and Materials Science and Professor of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science at the USC Viterbi School of Engineering.

What this handout is about

Nearly every element of style that is accepted and encouraged in general academic writing is also considered good practice in scientific writing. The major difference between science writing and writing in other academic fields is the relative importance placed on certain stylistic elements. This handout details the most critical aspects of scientific writing and provides some strategies for evaluating and improving your scientific prose. Readers of this handout may also find our handout on scientific reports useful.

What is scientific writing?

There are several different kinds of writing that fall under the umbrella of scientific writing. Scientific writing can include:

• Peer-reviewed journal articles (presenting primary research)
• Grant proposals (you can’t do science without funding)
• Literature review articles (summarizing and synthesizing research that has already been carried out)

As a student in the sciences, you are likely to spend some time writing lab reports, which often follow the format of peer-reviewed articles and literature reviews. Regardless of the genre, though, all scientific writing has the same goal: to present data and/or ideas with a level of detail that allows a reader to evaluate the validity of the results and conclusions based only on the facts presented. The reader should be able to easily follow both the methods used to generate the data (if it’s a primary research paper) and the chain of logic used to draw conclusions from the data. Several key elements allow scientific writers to achieve these goals:

• Precision: ambiguities in writing cause confusion and may prevent a reader from grasping crucial aspects of the methodology and synthesis
• Clarity: concepts and methods in the sciences can often be complex; writing that is difficult to follow greatly amplifies any confusion on the part of the reader
• Objectivity: any claims that you make need to be based on facts, not intuition or emotion

How can I make my writing more precise?

Theories in the sciences are based upon precise mathematical models, specific empirical (primary) data sets, or some combination of the two. Therefore, scientists must use precise, concrete language to evaluate and explain such theories, whether mathematical or conceptual. There are a few strategies for avoiding ambiguous, imprecise writing.

Word and phrasing choice

Often several words may convey similar meaning, but usually only one word is most appropriate in a given context. Here’s an example:

• Word choice 1: “population density is positively correlated with disease transmission rate”
• Word choice 2: “population density is positively related to disease transmission rate”

In some contexts, “correlated” and “related” have similar meanings. But in scientific writing, “correlated” conveys a precise statistical relationship between two variables. In scientific writing, it is typically not enough to simply point out that two variables are related: the reader will expect you to explain the precise nature of the relationship (note: when using “correlation,” you must explain somewhere in the paper how the correlation was estimated). If you mean “correlated,” then use the word “correlated”; avoid substituting a less precise term when a more precise term is available.

This same idea also applies to choice of phrasing. For example, the phrase “writing of an investigative nature” could refer to writing in the sciences, but might also refer to a police report. When presented with a choice, a more specific and less ambiguous phraseology is always preferable. This applies even when you must be repetitive to maintain precision: repetition is preferable to ambiguity. Although repetition of words or phrases often happens out of necessity, it can actually be beneficial by placing special emphasis on key concepts.

Figurative language

Figurative language can make for interesting and engaging casual reading but is by definition imprecise. Writing “experimental subjects were assaulted with a wall of sound” does not convey the precise meaning of “experimental subjects were presented with 20 second pulses of conspecific mating calls.” It’s difficult for a reader to objectively evaluate your research if details are left to the imagination, so exclude similes and metaphors from your scientific writing.

Level of detail

Include as much detail as is necessary, but exclude extraneous information. The reader should be able to easily follow your methodology, results, and logic without being distracted by irrelevant facts and descriptions. Ask yourself the following questions when you evaluate the level of detail in a paper:

• Is the rationale for performing the experiment clear (i.e., have you shown that the question you are addressing is important and interesting)?
• Are the materials and procedures used to generate the results described at a level of detail that would allow the experiment to be repeated?
• Is the rationale behind the choice of experimental methods clear? Will the reader understand why those particular methods are appropriate for answering the question your research is addressing?
• Will the reader be able to follow the chain of logic used to draw conclusions from the data?

Any information that enhances the reader’s understanding of the rationale, methodology, and logic should be included, but information in excess of this (or information that is redundant) will only confuse and distract the reader.

Whenever possible, use quantitative rather than qualitative descriptions. A phrase that uses definite quantities such as “development rate in the 30°C temperature treatment was ten percent faster than development rate in the 20°C temperature treatment” is much more precise than the more qualitative phrase “development rate was fastest in the higher temperature treatment.”

How can I make my writing clearer?

When you’re writing about complex ideas and concepts, it’s easy to get sucked into complex writing. Distilling complicated ideas into simple explanations is challenging, but you’ll need to acquire this valuable skill to be an effective communicator in the sciences. Complexities in language use and sentence structure are perhaps the most common issues specific to writing in the sciences.

Language use

When given a choice between a familiar and a technical or obscure term, the more familiar term is preferable if it doesn’t reduce precision. Here are a just a few examples of complex words and their simple alternatives:

In these examples, the term on the right conveys the same meaning as the word on the left but is more familiar and straightforward, and is often shorter as well.

There are some situations where the use of a technical or obscure term is justified. For example, in a paper comparing two different viral strains, the author might repeatedly use the word “enveloped” rather than the phrase “surrounded by a membrane.” The key word here is “repeatedly”: only choose the less familiar term if you’ll be using it more than once. If you choose to go with the technical term, however, make sure you clearly define it, as early in the paper as possible. You can use this same strategy to determine whether or not to use abbreviations, but again you must be careful to define the abbreviation early on.

Sentence structure

Science writing must be precise, and precision often requires a fine level of detail. Careful description of objects, forces, organisms, methodology, etc., can easily lead to complex sentences that express too many ideas without a break point. Here’s an example:

The osmoregulatory organ, which is located at the base of the third dorsal spine on the outer margin of the terminal papillae and functions by expelling excess sodium ions, activates only under hypertonic conditions.

Several things make this sentence complex. First, the action of the sentence (activates) is far removed from the subject (the osmoregulatory organ) so that the reader has to wait a long time to get the main idea of the sentence. Second, the verbs “functions,” “activates,” and “expelling” are somewhat redundant. Consider this revision:

Located on the outer margin of the terminal papillae at the base of the third dorsal spine, the osmoregulatory organ expels excess sodium ions under hypertonic conditions.

This sentence is slightly shorter, conveys the same information, and is much easier to follow. The subject and the action are now close together, and the redundant verbs have been eliminated. You may have noticed that even the simpler version of this sentence contains two prepositional phrases strung together (“on the outer margin of…” and “at the base of…”). Prepositional phrases themselves are not a problem; in fact, they are usually required to achieve an adequate level of detail in science writing. However, long strings of prepositional phrases can cause sentences to wander. Here’s an example of what not to do from Alley (1996):

“…to confirm the nature of electrical breakdown of nitrogen in uniform fields at relatively high pressures and interelectrode gaps that approach those obtained in engineering practice, prior to the determination of the processes that set the criterion for breakdown in the above-mentioned gases and mixtures in uniform and non-uniform fields of engineering significance.”

The use of eleven (yes, eleven!) prepositional phrases in this sentence is excessive, and renders the sentence nearly unintelligible. Judging when a string of prepositional phrases is too long is somewhat subjective, but as a general rule of thumb, a single prepositional phrase is always preferable, and anything more than two strung together can be problematic.

Nearly every form of scientific communication is space-limited. Grant proposals, journal articles, and abstracts all have word or page limits, so there’s a premium on concise writing. Furthermore, adding unnecessary words or phrases distracts rather than engages the reader. Avoid generic phrases that contribute no novel information. Common phrases such as “the fact that,” “it should be noted that,” and “it is interesting that” are cumbersome and unnecessary. Your reader will decide whether or not your paper is interesting based on the content. In any case, if information is not interesting or noteworthy it should probably be excluded.

How can I make my writing more objective?

The objective tone used in conventional scientific writing reflects the philosophy of the scientific method: if results are not repeatable, then they are not valid. In other words, your results will only be considered valid if any researcher performing the same experimental tests and analyses that you describe would be able to produce the same results. Thus, scientific writers try to adopt a tone that removes the focus from the researcher and puts it only on the research itself. Here are several stylistic conventions that enhance objectivity:

Passive voice

You may have been told at some point in your academic career that the use of the passive voice is almost always bad, except in the sciences. The passive voice is a sentence structure where the subject who performs the action is ambiguous (e.g., “you may have been told,” as seen in the first sentence of this paragraph; see our handout on passive voice and this 2-minute video on passive voice for a more complete discussion).

The rationale behind using the passive voice in scientific writing is that it enhances objectivity, taking the actor (i.e., the researcher) out of the action (i.e., the research). Unfortunately, the passive voice can also lead to awkward and confusing sentence structures and is generally considered less engaging (i.e., more boring) than the active voice. This is why most general style guides recommend only sparing use of the passive voice.

Currently, the active voice is preferred in most scientific fields, even when it necessitates the use of “I” or “we.” It’s perfectly reasonable (and more simple) to say “We performed a two-tailed t-test” rather than to say “a two-tailed t-test was performed,” or “in this paper we present results” rather than “results are presented in this paper.” Nearly every current edition of scientific style guides recommends the active voice, but different instructors (or journal editors) may have different opinions on this topic. If you are unsure, check with the instructor or editor who will review your paper to see whether or not to use the passive voice. If you choose to use the active voice with “I” or “we,” there are a few guidelines to follow:

• Avoid starting sentences with “I” or “we”: this pulls focus away from the scientific topic at hand.
• Avoid using “I” or “we” when you’re making a conjecture, whether it’s substantiated or not. Everything you say should follow from logic, not from personal bias or subjectivity. Never use any emotive words in conjunction with “I” or “we” (e.g., “I believe,” “we feel,” etc.).
• Never use “we” in a way that includes the reader (e.g., “here we see trait evolution in action”); the use of “we” in this context sets a condescending tone.

Acknowledging your limitations

Your conclusions should be directly supported by the data that you present. Avoid making sweeping conclusions that rest on assumptions that have not been substantiated by your or others’ research. For example, if you discover a correlation between fur thickness and basal metabolic rate in rats and mice you would not necessarily conclude that fur thickness and basal metabolic rate are correlated in all mammals. You might draw this conclusion, however, if you cited evidence that correlations between fur thickness and basal metabolic rate are also found in twenty other mammalian species. Assess the generality of the available data before you commit to an overly general conclusion.

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Alley, Michael. 1996. The Craft of Scientific Writing , 3rd ed. New York: Springer.

Council of Science Editors. 2014. Scientific Style and Format: The CSE Manual for Authors, Editors, and Publishers , 8th ed. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.

Day, Robert A. 1994. How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper , 4th ed. Phoenix: Oryx Press.

Day, Robert, and Nancy Sakaduski. 2011. Scientific English: A Guide for Scientists and Other Professionals , 3rd ed. Santa Barbara: Greenwood.

Gartland, John J. 1993. Medical Writing and Communicating . Frederick, MD: University Publishing Group.

Williams, Joseph M., and Joseph Bizup. 2016. Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace , 12th ed. New York: Pearson.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

• Search This Site All UCSD Sites Faculty/Staff Search Term
• Contact & Directions
• Climate Statement
• Cognitive Behavioral Neuroscience
• Cognitive Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Adjunct Faculty
• Non-Senate Instructors
• Researchers
• Psychology Grads
• Affiliated Grads
• New and Prospective Students
• Honors Program
• Experiential Learning
• Programs & Events
• Psi Chi / Psychology Club
• Prospective PhD Students
• Current PhD Students
• Area Brown Bags
• Colloquium Series
• Anderson Distinguished Lecture Series
• Speaker Videos
• Undergraduate Program
• Academic and Writing Resources

Writing Research Papers

• Improving Scientific Writing

Writing is an art – an expression of skill, creativity, and in many cases, imagination.  Writing research papers is no exception.  Here we provide several examples of common ways to improve scientific writing. 

Please note that these examples refer to specific sections of research papers, but generally apply to any section of a research paper.

Topic Sentences and Connective Words and Phrases 

Most research papers present data or information that the reader may not be immediately familiar with.  For this reason, the importance of clarity and avoiding confusion cannot be overstated.  For instance, a major source of reader difficulty is the presentation of text that is not accompanied by any information that orients the reader as to its organization or focus.  That is illustrated in the following example (taken from a rough draft of a research paper):

Original Paragraph:  “ Mickelson (2013) found that sleep deprivation reduced procedural memory performance independently of procedural memory task ability.  According to Maxwell (2015), sleep deprivation reduces cognitive performance; however, its effects on prospective memory are unknown. In that study, they found that sleep deprivation can reduce participant’s performance during a finger-tapping task, which is caused by difficulties in staying aroused.”

To improve clarity, the use of topic sentences at the start of paragraphs can be especially helpful.  The topic sentence alerts the reader as to the organization and focus of the text that follows.  It also helps to ensure that each sentence follows the next in a logical, easy-to-read fashion.  That can be aided by connective words and phrases (for example, the words and phrases furthermore, moreover, additionally , in addition , for example, etc.).  Returning to the prior example, it can be modified as follows: 

Improved Paragraph  (key changes underlined) : “ Recent studies on the effects of sleep deprivation provide evidence that sleep can impact procedural learning and skills .  For example , Mickelson (2013) found that sleep deprivation reduced procedural memory performance independently of procedural memory task ability.  In addition , Maxwell (2015) found that sleep deprivation can reduce participant’s performance during a finger-tapping task, a finding that was attributed to difficulties in staying aroused.  Together, these and other studies suggest that inadequate sleep has a deleterious effect on a wide range of tasks involving motor skills .”

The improved paragraph begins with a topic sentence (“Recent studies…”) and the subsequent sentences include connective phrases (“For example,…”, “In addition,…”).  A concluding sentence (“Together, these…”) also summarizes the information that was presented in that paragraph.

Transitions Between Paragraphs and Ideas

As with topic sentences and connective words and phrases, the use of  transition sentences can help improve readers’ ability to advance from one paragraph to the next or one idea to the next.  This is especially important when two adjacent paragraphs discuss disparate topics.  In the absence of those transitions, as illustrated in the example paragraphs below, readers may miss the main points of the text.  They may also find the text unclear or even jarring to read in some cases.

Original Paragraphs:  “Bargh, Chen, and Burrows (1996) demonstrated perhaps the most famous of “social priming” effects.  In their study, participants completed a scrambled-sentence task and then left the laboratory.  When the task included words that reflected old age stereotypes, participants were recorded exiting the experimenter room more slowly.  Other researchers subsequently demonstrated social priming effects for other types of stereotypes and tasks.  For instance, Dijksterhuis and van Knippenberg (1998) found that activation of soccer hooliganism stereotypes reduced performance on general knowledge tests. Shanks et al. (2013) attempted to replicate several social priming effects across nine experiments.  A Bayesian analysis found evidence in favor of the null hypothesis in all cases.  Pashler, Coburn, and Harris (2012) attempted to replicate “spatial distance priming” effects (Williams & Bargh, 2008), in which plotting a pair of points affected participants’ reports of closeness with family members and food calorie estimates.  Across two experiments, the original findings did not replicate.”

In the above example, the lack of a transition sentence can lead readers to be surprised by the content of the second paragraph (or even miss the contrast with the first).  However, that problem can be easily remedied with such a sentence, for instance as follows:

Improved Paragraphs  (key changes underlined) : “…Other researchers subsequently demonstrated social priming effects for other types of stereotypes and tasks.  For instance, Dijksterhuis and van Knippenberg (1998) found that activation of soccer hooliganism stereotypes led to reduced performance on general knowledge tests. Although the “social priming” effects demonstrated by Bargh et al. (1996) and others seemed compelling to many observers, more recent work suggests that such effects do not reliably occur .  Specifically , Shanks et al. (2013) attempted to replicate several social priming effects across nine experiments.  A Bayesian analysis found evidence in favor of the null hypothesis in all cases.  Similarly , Pashler, Coburn, and Harris (2012) attempted to…”

As illustrated in the improved paragraphs, the addition of a transition sentence at the start of the second paragraph (“Although those…”) alerts the reader to the contrast between the two paragraphs.  Connective words and phrases also improve comprehension and flow.  As such, the reader immediately knows that the studies discussed in the first paragraph are disputed by those in the second.

Statistics vs. Prose  

When reporting statistical results, it is often less desirable to describe those results in a technically-dense, matter-of-fact manner (for example, describing the analyses in the exact order that they were performed and without focusing on the most meaningful results, as shown below 1 ). 

Original Paragraph:  “A two-way, 2x2 between-subjects ANOVA was performed on ratings of the vividness of childhood memories in which the independent variables were participant sex (male or female) and induced mood (happy, sad). There was no main effect for sex (F, p), but there was a main effect of mood, (F, p), and a mood by sex interaction (F, p).  Happy people had more vivid memories than sad people, overall. This effect was stronger for women than it was for men. As can be seen in the results from Tukey’s studentized range test reported in Table 1, the vividness of happy and sad female participants’ memories differed significantly, but the vividness of happy and sad male participants’ memories did not.”

An improved (that is, completely rewritten) version of the prior paragraph organizes the statistical analyses in a more easily understood fashion, highlights the most important results, clearly relates the findings to the study hypothesis, and prefaces the entire paragraph with an introductory sentence that orients the reader (with major improvements underlined as shown below 1 ).

Improved Paragraph  (key changes underlined) : “ Table 1 provides the vividness ratings for men and women who experienced happy or sad moods . The childhood memories of men and women did not differ in vividness, (F, p). The most striking finding, however , was that the usual tendency for happy people to report more vivid memories than people in sad moods (F, p) was stronger for women than men, as indicated by a significant sex by mood interaction, (F,p). This finding is consistent with hypothesis that mood has a more pronounced effect on the quality of childhood memories among women than men and was confirmed with the Tukey’s studentized range test reported in Table 1.”

A further type of improvement in that paragraph is the use of phrases which directly connects results statements to their statistical evidence (“as indicated by”, “was confirmed with”), and makes it clear to the reader how the authors’ conclusions are supported.  The improved paragraph also takes advantage of the fact that data are presented in a table by referring readers to that table at the outset.

Workshops and Downloadable Resources

• For in-person discussion of the process of writing research papers, please consider attending this department’s “Writing Research Papers” workshop (for dates and times, please check the undergraduate workshops calendar).

Downloadable Resources

• How to Write APA Style Research Papers (a comprehensive guide) [ PDF ]
• Tips for Writing APA Style Research Papers (a brief summary) [ PDF ]

Further Resources  

How-To Videos     

• Writing Research Paper Videos

Further Reading

• Strunk, W. (2007). The elements of style . Penguin [Book] Continuously published since at least 1920, this is one of the most influential guides to writing style in American English.  Recommended by Dr. Stephen Link.

External Resources

• How to Write Better Scientific Papers (Elsevier Publishing)
• Top Ten Writing Tips for Scientists
• Twenty-One Suggestions for Writing Good Scientific Papers
• Tutorial on Scientific Writing from Duke University [Tutorial]

1 Carver, L. (2014).  Writing the research paper [Workshop]. 

Prepared by s. c. pan for ucsd psychology.

Back to top

• Research Paper Structure
• Formatting Research Papers
• Using Databases and Finding References
• What Types of References Are Appropriate?
• Evaluating References and Taking Notes
• Citing References
• Writing a Literature Review
• Writing Process and Revising
• Academic Integrity and Avoiding Plagiarism
• Writing Research Papers Videos

JavaScript seems to be disabled in your browser. For the best experience on our site, be sure to turn on Javascript in your browser.

• Euro Store View
• British Pound Sterling Store View
• or Register

• Loading controls
• Neuronal & Glial Markers
• Agonists & activators
• Antagonists & inhibitors
• Antibiotics
• Ion indicators, ionophores
• Dyes, labels & stains
• Neuropeptides
• Antimicrobial peptides
• Photopharmacology
• Pharmacological disease models
• ECL Substrate Kits
• CRISPR & gene editing
• NEW PRODUCTS
• G protein coupled receptors
• Ionotropic receptors
• Ion channels
• Nuclear Receptors
• Transporters
• Antimicrobials
• T-cell Related
• Apoptosis & cell cycle
• Cell Signaling
• Ubiquitin-proteasome system (UPS)
• Oxidative Phosphorylation
• Cell stains, viability & proliferation
• Cell stains
• Cytoskeleton and Extracellular Matrix
• DNA, RNA & protein synthesis
• Immunology & Inflammation
• Proliferation
• Calcium signaling
• Cell imaging
• Epigenetics
• GABA receptors
• Genome editing; CRISPR / CAS9
• Glutamate receptors
• Enzyme inhibitors & activators
• Neuroscience research tools
• Stem cells & small molecules
• ValidAbs™ - data-rich antibodies
• Buying FAQs
• Distributors
• Quality guarantee
• Technical help & FAQs
• Financial help - grants & awards
• Support for scientists
• Protocols, Product Guides & Reviews
• Life Scientists' Guides
• FAQs - antibodies
• FAQs - biochemicals
• FAQs - fluorescent tools
• FAQs - peptides
• Molarity calculator
• Dilution Calculator
• Life science guides
• Scientists interviews
• News, updates & offers
• Science events & awards
• Fun science!
• Who are we?
• Quality - the HelloBio Promise
• Our price pledge
• Scientific Advisory Board
• What are customers saying?

6 Top Science Writing Tips from the Experts

Learning how to write great scientific papers is a skill that all researchers should master, yet commiting pen to paper (or fingertip to keyboard!) can sometimes feel like a daunting task. If you’re aiming for publication, knowing how to structure a paper and make it compelling for the reader is essential to maximise its engagement and reach.

At the Hello Bio LabLife Conference earlier this year, we held a panel discussion on ‘Writing, Peer-Reviewing & Publishing Papers’ in which two experienced science writers, Dr Matthew Lloyd and Dr Bronwen Martin each shared 3 top tips for science writing success. Here are their essential tips for writing great scientific papers:

Dr Matthew Lloyd

Senior Lecturer, Department of Life Sciences, University of Bath, UK

1 - Think about who you want your audience to be

Before you start writing a scientific paper, it’s important to consider who your intended audience will be. Will you be targeting experts in a particular field, or writing more generally for a wider scientific audience? If you have a specific journal in mind that you’re hoping to submit your paper to, this should be reflected in your writing style and format. Do your research to determine the type of papers they are more likely to publish and the style of writing they prefer. When you understand who it is you are writing for you will find it easier to shape the structure of your paper, and you’ll be able to direct the message of your writing to your desired audience.

2 - Think about how you want your audience to use your publication

As you are writing, think about the end goal. What do you want your audience to get from (and do with) your paper? For example, if you’re looking to publish a review piece then your writing needs to be balanced and unbiased. It needs to be factual and informative with references to the original text, and any criticisms should be considered fairly. If you’re writing an experimental paper about your own research, your goal will be to convey your results (and their importance) to as many relevant readers as possible. Think about the language you choose to do this and be honest with the reader. Let them know why you chose to do this research and why it really matters to you.

3 - Be sure to write a complete and compelling story

Science writing isn’t always a creative pursuit, but if you can ensure your writing tells a story that’s compelling to the reader you’re likely to get much more engagement. Walk the reader through your research, from the early beginnings of an idea to the culmination of your hard work, and create a story that is interesting and that flows as naturally as possible. Don’t leave any unanswered questions and don’t be vague in your language. Concise writing is always more desirable and will keep the reader engaged with your paper from start to finish.

Dr Bronwen Martin

Scientific Editor & Research Communicator, Faculty of Pharmaceutical, Biomedical & Veterinary Sciences, University of Antwerp, Belgium

4 - Ensure your paper has a coherent structure by packaging your data well

Having a good structure to your paper is very important as there’s nothing more frustrating for the reader than having to work their way through a muddled and confusing piece of writing. Presenting your data in a coherent way is absolutely vital when it comes to good science writing. Ensure you have the structure of your story in place first (see tip 3!) before deciding how best to package your data. Once you’ve decided what will work best for your particular research, be clear and bold with your data presentation. Don’t leave the reader with any uncertainty about the data you’re putting across. Pay attention to the legends of any Figures, Schemes or Tables and ensure the reader has all the necessary information needed to understand what is presented.

5 - Think carefully about your title and abstract in terms of keywords

Once your paper is published you’ll be relying on search engines and keywords to help readers find it. Most people will be searching on PubMed and Google to find papers that are relevant, and their search engine algorithms will often be looking for very specific words. There are currently approximately 34 million publications in PubMed, so if you don't have the right keywords in your title or abstract then your paper will have a much slimmer chance of being discovered by the right people. Think carefully about the types of words you would use if you were searching for a paper like yours, and be sure they are prominent in your writing. Give your paper the best chance of discovery by building in the right keywords.

6 - Always have a good summary and explanation of your data in your discussion

At the end of your paper, be sure to include a clear and concise summary of your data. Use this as an opportunity to reinforce the relevance of your results and offer explanations if you feel there is anything left unresolved in your writing. A great summary should leave the reader with a strong take-home message that sums up the paper and its importance to both you and the wider science community.

More science writing resources from Hello Bio

For more great advice on writing scientific papers, check out some of the other fantastic resources available on the Hello Bio blog:

• The Life Scientists' Guide to Writing Scientific Papers
• Five Essential Tips for Writing Scientific Papers - guest article by Jasmine Pickford
• Scientific Papers: Tips For More Productive Writing - guest article by Maria Montefinese
• Sailing Through Your PhD Thesis: Writing Tips - guest article by Dr Zeinab Leila Asgarian

___________________________________________

If you enjoyed this article, why not check out the other resources available on our blog. We are passionate about supporting life scientists including early career life scientists and PhD students - with really low-priced reagents and biochemicals , early career scientist grants , and resources to help with both personal and professional development. We know how tough it is - so we hope you find these helpful!

More General Support for Life Scientists

For advice on writing papers, dissertations, presenting at conferences, wellbeing, PhD support, networking and lots more, we have a huge range of articles to help - just click below:

Save up to 50% on our high purity reagents...

When you get to the stage of planning your experiments, don't forget that we offer a range of low-cost, high-purity agonists, antagonists, inhibitors, activators, antibodies and fluorescent tools ( yes - they really are around half the price of other suppliers ! ) You can use our Quick Multi-Search Tool to search for lots of products in one go, and the range includes:

• Enzyme inhibitors and activators
• Chemogenetic ligands
• Ion channel modulators
• GPCR & ionotropic receptor ligands
• Cell biology reagents & biochemicals

Technical resources

Try our Molarity Calculator : a quick and easy way to calculate the mass, volume or concentration required for making a solution.

And finally, don't forget to check back in with our blog regularly for our latest articles. If there’s something you’d love to contribute to the community, whether that’s an interview or article, drop us a line at [email protected]

• Life Scientists' Guides (20)
• Support for Scientists (113)
• Early Career Scientist Grants (41)
• Travel Grants (39)
• Scientist Interviews (176)
• News, Updates & Offers (32)
• Science Events & Awards (90)
• Guest Posts (87)
• Fun Science! (33)

Recent posts

Recent comments.

• Apply for our travel awards - it's easy! You can find out more about how to apply for any available Hello Bio grants here:... Hello Bio Loading...
• Ten of Our Favourite Science Memes i loveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee these but its kinda shorttttt nightmarebeforechristmasfan12345 Loading...
• Apply for our travel awards - it's easy! I really appreciate the efforts taken by hellobio team in regards to travel awards, as actually... Sakshi Poddar Loading...
• Apply for our travel awards - it's easy! Hi Josita, to answer your question, we offer Early Career Scientist grants. Check out the link... Hello Bio Loading...
• Failure, Resiliency and Overcoming Imposter Syndrome I'm afraid we can't give you any degree advice, but there lots of resources on our blog that may be... Hello Bio Loading...

Writing and publishing a scientific paper

• Lecture Text
• Open access
• Published: 11 January 2022
• Volume 8 , article number  8 , ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Fritz Scholz   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6287-1184 1  

24k Accesses

8 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This text is designed to give the reader a helping hand in writing a scientific paper. It provides generic advice on ways that a scientific paper can be improved. The focus is on the following ethical and non-technical issues: (1) when to start writing, and in what language; (2) how to choose a good title; (3) what should be included in the various sections (abstract, introduction, experimental, results, discussion, conclusions, and supporting information (supplementary material); (4) who should be considered as a co-author, and who should be acknowledged for help; (5) which journal should be chosen; and (6) how to respond to reviewers’ comments. Purely technical issues, such as grammar, artwork, reference styles, etc., are not considered.

Graphical abstract

Similar content being viewed by others

How to Write and Publish a Research Paper for a Peer-Reviewed Journal

Clara Busse & Ella August

Plagiarism in research

Gert Helgesson & Stefan Eriksson

How to Check for Plagiarism?

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

“Work, finish, publish” (Michael Faraday) [ 1 ]. Footnote 1

Introduction

The task of writing a scientific paper usually befalls young researchers quite early in their bachelor, masters or PhD degree programs. In most cases, the candidates know very little about the publishing process, which involves a complex combination of historical traditions and modern innovations. Guidebooks are of course available, but these tend to focus on purely technical issues, and miss the interpersonal nuances that are so daunting for the beginner. In any case, the technical issues are normally not the main problem for computer-literate students, so I avoid them in this document. Instead I present my personal views on the overall process, and leave it to the reader to evaluate them.

Long experience has taught me that there are many ways of writing a successful paper, but nevertheless some general principles can be identified. In what follows, all my suggestions are informed by my experience as the editor-in-chief of two international journals, the Journal of Solid State Electrochemistry for 25 years, and ChemTexts—The Textbook Journal of Chemistry for 7 years. I have also been the editor of the series Monographs in Electrochemistry , as well as various reference books and textbooks.

Looking back at history, the communication of scientific results in specialist journals is a rather recent development: its origins date back to the second half of the seventeenth century. In 1665, the Journal des sçavans started in France, while the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society began in Great Britain. Before that time, it was common to publish new findings in books. However, the increasing pace of scientific developments, as well as the increasing number of people who were devoting their lives to science, required a more efficient and faster form of communication. For this to be achieved, journals proved to be very successful. The history of scientific journals cannot be traced here, but I recommend the book The Scientific Journal by Alex Csiszar [ 2 ].

Scientific communication requires a common language that is shared by the author and the reader. Michael D. Gordin has described in his book Scientific Babel [ 3 ] how, over the last few centuries, scientific communication has gradually shifted from Latin to English. The author also pays detailed attention to the French, German and Russian languages, which played important roles in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. These languages retain their importance for scientists, because they contain the foundational texts of many important branches of science.

When to start writing a manuscript

It is trivial to say that one should write a manuscript only when one has new results to communicate. But new results do not appear suddenly and without ambiguity. Rather, they tend to accumulate gradually over time, and require repeated contextualisation to be fully appreciated. This begs the question, at what point should one publish?

Answering this question is difficult. Students certainly need to discuss the matter with their supervisors, who have the necessary experience and far-sightedness. Beginners often wildly underrate or overrate their data. Realistically, however, all scientific publication is a compromise between “publishing too late” and “publishing too early”.

“Publishing too late” (or never) is a well-known fault of some overcautious individuals, who withhold their data from public scrutiny because they are not satisfied with its accuracy and completeness. Although this demonstrates their high ethical standards as regards their personal participation in the scientific process, it also reveals an indifference to the social value of their data and the financial costs to others of having to reproduce their results. In the final analysis, tax-payers’ money that is spent on unpublished work is wasted money, and this raises questions of probity. (In the case of industrial research, contractual confidentiality may also restrict publication, but that is a problem I cannot discuss here.)

“Publishing too early” is a fault of some reckless individuals who have scant regard for the integrity of the scientific process. The institutional pressure to publish papers and the competition for scarce funds are the main causes of this. Nowadays, pollution of the scientific literature by worthless, irreproducible or sloppy work is an increasing and serious problem. Here I can only plead with colleagues of all ages: please do not be tempted by the short-term advantages of overpublication. The benefits are illusory, and the damage is untold. With the advent of mass data storage, published papers are effectively immortal, and sooner or later bad work (and its creators) will be found out.

Of course, “publishing too early” is most tempting for the beginner, and the problem becomes critical when the supervisor is also overambitious. If the supervisor pressurizes the student to publish uncooked results, then the student has a big problem! Now, many universities have introduced ‘thesis committees’ consisting of the primary supervisor plus two or three additional members. These committees can provide valuable advice with respect to timeliness of publishing and they may also mitigate conflicts between the student and their main supervisor, if they happen to occur.

Personally, I have been an ombudsman at my university, and I am pleased to say that such conflicts can be resolved amicably by careful and trustful discussions between all parties. But I fear that global science has a problem with this issue.

The whole question of when to start writing cannot be answered by a simple prescription, and depends to a large extent on the personalities of the individuals concerned. My personal advice is to start writing as soon as the main results become discernible. Writing down the first tranche of clear and reliable results is a useful discipline which indicates what has been achieved and what experiments remain to be done. If you delay writing until you think that all the required experiments have been completed, then you will be sadly disappointed. You will discover that much has been omitted, and then you will have to start again with certain crucial experiments. It goes without saying that co-authors should be involved very early in the writing.

In what language should the paper be written?

What language to use is rather obvious. If you want to be understood worldwide, then you must publish in English. In 2021, there were around 1.35 billion people, scattered over many countries, who spoke English as a first or second language. If you are not a native English speaker, then I strongly recommend that you start to write in English. Do not write in your native language with the vague notion of translating it later into English. This is always bad policy, because you will certainly find it more difficult to translate your text into English than to compose it from scratch. Assuredly, this demands a reasonable command of English. But there are practical steps that you can take to help you along the way.

To achieve a sufficient command of English, you should read as many well-written(!) scientific papers in English as possible. For technical English, try to focus on papers written by native English speakers. However, do not limit yourself to scientific papers, but also read English stories and novels, or any other writings, that can expand your knowledge of English. You should also try to distinguish the different styles (scientific, colloquial, etc.) and avoid mixing them in your own writing.

At this point I suggest the book The Chemist’s English [ 4 ] written by Robert Schoenfeld, and his paper “Say it in English, please” [ 5 ]. Schoenfeld was editor-in-chief of the Australian Journal of Chemistry . One trick that I have found very effective for improving my written English is to translate the draft manuscript back into my native language (in my case German). For many years I did this for publications in Angewandte Chemie , a journal that is published both in English and German, and these back translations frequently revealed the weaknesses in my English.

Concerning written text, I have some further advice which is not specific to the English language: first of all, write clearly and understandably! The eminent physicist Carl Wagner (1901–1976) famously wrote “Any fool can think and write something complicated” (“Jeder Dumme kann etwas Kompliziertes denken und schreiben”) [ 6 ]. Always remember these wise words! Whenever you write a very complicated phrase, ask yourself, do you really understand what you have written? Very often, complicated constructions are the result of an insufficient understanding, or represent an attempt at “hedging” i.e. attempting to disguise the omission of certain facts which might otherwise conflict with the overall claims being made.

In the same book, Wagner also wrote “It is a very special art to speak understandably about subjects when they are not yet completely known”. With regard to clear and understandable language, I should also like to give a serious warning regarding the misuse of certain words and phrases that express uncertainty: “possibly”, “probably”, “may be an indication of”, “seems to be”, “cannot be excluded”, “it is reasonable to assume”, etc. It is possible that these constructions may be justified in certain circumstances, but more often than not they hide a lack of understanding, and trigger alarm bells in the minds of readers. Whenever you write these phrases, ask yourself, are they necessary, are they well-reasoned? I have seen manuscripts full of such vague phrases, and it was clear that they were more or less worthless!

For the language of a paper to be intelligible, it is also necessary that a well-defined terminology is used. The terms have to be internationally accepted (e.g. by IUPAC) and have to be used consistently. It is not good to operate with several synonyms, but one and the same should be used throughout.

The structure of a scientific paper

Usually, scientific papers are structured in the following subsections: (1) title, (2) name of authors and their affiliation(s), (3) keywords, (4) graphical abstract, (5) abstract, (6) introduction, (7) experimental part, (8) results and discussion, (9) conclusions, (10) acknowledgements, (11) references, (12) list of figure captions, (13) figures. Most journals offer publication of ‘supporting information’ (or ‘supplementary material’): these supplements are not part of the main paper, but usually constitute a depository for data, figures, tables, mathematical derivations, etc. which the reader may like to consult for a deeper understanding, which, however, are not vital for a general understanding of the paper. I always prefer to put as much as possible into the main paper, and restrict supplementary information to items which are really of less significance. Many journals provide templates, which you should use. In these templates, the order of items may differ from that given above. You should always adhere strictly to the guidelines of the journal. Some details relating to the subsections of a paper are described below.

The title is the entrance door to your paper. Reading the title, many people make the decision whether to enter the document or walk away. According to Thomson’s Web of Science , about 27% of natural science papers are uncited after 5 years, most likely because they are unread, or undiscovered by search engines. To attract interest, the title of a paper needs to be as short as possible, but as long as necessary. It should also contain some searchable terms for easy computer recognition. Certainly, the title also needs to indicate the very essence of the paper. Prior to the advent of computers, it was customary to use titles like “Studies in phosphorus chemistry. Part XII.”! What on earth does that tell you? Nothing about the specific contents, that’s for sure. Luckily, the time of such absurdities is over.

Phrasing the title of a scientific paper is hard work, and usually the final choice will emerge only after long consideration. It is my personal view that authors should think about the title at the very beginning of writing a manuscript. Since the title reveals the essence, a well-chosen title can set the tone for the entire manuscript. And it goes without saying that the title can still be modified many times as the manuscript mutates into its final form.

The keywords

Most journals request a list of keywords. These are important for the classification of the paper in information systems. Think about the terms that best characterise the content of your paper. However, try to avoid newly created terms or abbreviations. Although an overlap between title terms and keywords is unavoidable, the latter should provide additional information.

The abstract

Following the title, the abstract is the most important device for attracting the attention of readers. Personally, I have always advocated writing the first draft of the abstract before writing the remainder of the text. This forces the author to identify the principal achievements at an early stage. Like the title, the abstract needs to be as short as possible and as long as necessary. Its function is to summarize all the main results. I know that many experienced colleagues disagree with my suggestion of writing the first draft of the abstract before writing the main body of the text. However, my suggestion is not meant to be an apodictic rule. You must find out what best suits you.

Drafting the title and abstract at an early stage presupposes that you already have a clear picture of your achievement. If you do not have that clear picture, then a good suggestion is to arrange all your diagrams and tables in a logical sequence, and then write the text around that.

The abstract needs to contain as much quantitative information as possible. If you have new and significant data, give them in the abstract!

The introduction

The introduction should state the motivation and the aim of the presented research and refer to all relevant literature. If the paper is intended for a specialised journal, avoid rehashing simple textbook knowledge, as you can assume that expert readers will already be acquainted with it. In more general journals, some wider introductory remarks may be necessary.

When you discuss earlier works in your field, do not focus purely on their shortcomings. Make sure that you acknowledge their achievements. Be fair in your presentation. Cite all relevant papers, at least the most important ones. Do not overcite your own papers.

At the end of the introduction, state what you have achieved and what you will present in the paper. Do not repeat the abstract. This is important for the entire paper: avoid repetitions!

The experimental part

This part should contain sufficient experimental details (chemicals, instruments, methods, etc.) for your work to be reproduced in another laboratory. If certain procedures or techniques have previously been published by you, or others, you may refer to those papers without repeating the details. However, the reference has to be accessible. I have seen papers in which the author wrote “the technique is described in Ref. X”. When reading Ref. X, I found the remark “the technique is described in Ref. Y”, and so forth until I gave up searching! This is unacceptable.

The results and discussions

In the past, many journals have demanded that the results and discussion be reported separately. Some journals still demand this. Especially in the case of highly multidisciplinary work it is necessary to present first the results of the different disciplines, followed by a joint discussion referring to all the disciplines. However, if possible, I advocate providing the results and discussion simultaneously, since the combined text is easier to understand.

The most important point in writing the results and discussion section is logical consistency . The most frequently seen weakness appears when authors forego logical consistency and instead provide a chronological history of their experiments. This is often copied from laboratory notebooks. One then finds phrases like “first we thought that x may be the reason for y, and we performed the following experiments… then it turned out that y has nothing to do with x, and we supposed that z might cause the observed effect. Then we did this, and later we did that, and in the end…”. Such historical summaries are extremely tedious for the reader, and may even be misleading.

In results and discussion , it is essential to illustrate the results with clear reference to figures and tables, and to arrange the results within a logical framework. Figures, having captions, and tables, having headings, should be understandable without reading the detailed text.

The conclusions

The most frequent fault is the copying of an abstract, or the minor modification of an abstract, without any reference to the context of the results. The abstract does not require justification of the work: the conclusions certainly do. The conclusions have to provide new insight into a field of research, and this must be explained. The best writers will also indulge in some speculations about future work. These should open the readers’ eyes to novel and unexpected applications of the findings.

When you have finished writing a manuscript, leave it for some time untouched, and then read it again after some days or weeks. You will discover that a fresh reading reveals flaws, repetitions, typos, etc., which you missed the first time around. You should also use that time to circulate the document among trusted friends and colleagues who may act as internal reviewers before external submission. You will be surprised what typos your friends find! The blindness of authors to their own typos is legendary. The modern spellcheckers of computer systems do not prevent all typos, but they are helpful. (They may even introduce further errors, if you are not attentive).

Who should be co-authors and who should be acknowledged for help?

The ethical guidelines of most scientific funding organisations (e.g. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)/German Research Council [ 7 ]) demand that everybody who has a distinct share, be it intellectual or experimental, in a paper has to be listed as a co-author. Any “honorary” co-authorship is not allowed! This is a clear statement, but a lot of questions may arise in specific cases. Since I cannot say it in a better way, I cite here from the DFG guidelines:

Guideline 14: Authorship An author is an individual who has made a genuine, identifiable contribution to the content of a research publication of text, data or software. All authors agree on the final version of the work to be published. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, they share responsibility for the publication. Authors seek to ensure that, as far as possible, their contributions are identified by publishers or infrastructure providers such that they can be correctly cited by users. Explanations: The contribution must add to the research content of the publication. What constitutes a genuine and identifiable contribution must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and depends on the subject area in question. An identifiable, genuine contribution is deemed to exist particularly in instances in which a researcher—in a research-relevant way—takes part in the development and conceptual design of the research project, or the gathering, collection, acquisition or provision of data, software or sources, or the analysis/evaluation or interpretation of data, sources and conclusions drawn from them, or the drafting of the manuscript. If a contribution is not sufficient to justify authorship, the individual’s support may be properly acknowledged in footnotes, a foreword or an acknowledgement. Honorary authorship where no such contribution was made is not permissible. A leadership or supervisory function does not itself constitute co-authorship.

At some educational institutions, the rules for submitting a PhD thesis demand a certain number of submitted or published papers. Unfortunately, this occasionally leads to a sharing of authorship among two or more candidates, so that each of them reaches the desired number, although neither of them has a proper share in all the papers. This is unethical and is strongly condemned.

A very crucial point is that all co-authors must give their clear consent to the submission of the manuscript. Nowadays, most journals send emails to the co-authors informing them about the submission. However, this does not liberate principal authors from the moral imperative of sending their co-authors copies of the manuscript in advance of publication and asking for their consent! Similar advice applies to acknowledgements. Who would be happy about an acknowledgement in a paper that they disagree with?

Which journal should be chosen?

The manuscript should be submitted to a journal which is devoted to the branch of science concerned. Usually there are several journals available so authors need rational criteria for making a choice. Experienced authors typically decide on the basis of publishers’ reputations (journal citation metrics) or personal connections (networks of esteem). Nowadays, scientific information systems even make it possible to unearth obscure papers published in “wrong” journals, on the basis of the title, keywords and abstract. However, indifference to journal choice is not recommended as a career strategy!

Citation metrics have a history of about 200 years [ 8 ]. However the modern infatuation with citation metrics has been driven by their uncritical adoption by research organisations and promotion committees in making decisions about funding and promotion.

In 2012, the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA; https://sfdora.org ) criticized the use of “impact factors” for evaluating the merits of scientists. Since then, the criticism has intensified (see, e.g., [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 ]). Authors are now in a serious conflict situation: should they follow the metrics, or should they choose a journal according to other quality measures? This question is difficult to answer.

What are other quality measures? In my view, one of the most important is the quality of its reviewers and their reports. Those reports are the best which are competent, fair and helpful. Journals which provide such reports should certainly be considered. But these high-quality journals can only be identified by long experience.

Ultimately, neither the Impact Factor nor the CiteScore of a journal is an unambiguous measure of the quality of a single paper. So students should not feel upset when their papers appear in low index journals, nor should they feel triumphant when their papers appear in high index journals.

In all cases authors should beware of publishing in predatory journals ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_publishing ). Open access predatory journals publish manuscripts without serious review. They publish only for money.

Now, a final word about “open access” publishing: this is certainly the best way to disseminate scientific information; however, only if the journals operate a strict peer review. Some scientific publishers (e.g. Springer Nature, https://www.springernature.com/gp/open-research/institutional-agreements ) also have international agreements with universities and institutions to pay the costs of publishing.

How to respond to reviews of submitted manuscripts

It is very interesting to learn how the “peer review system” emerged and I suggest that students read about it in a paper by Csiszar in Nature [ 14 ]. Nowadays, when a manuscript is submitted to a reputable journal, it will first be read by members of the editorial board, who decide whether it should be sent out to referees (reviewers) or sent back to the authors. If serious deficiencies are identified then it is senseless to bother reviewers.

When you receive the reviews of your manuscript, normally at least two or three, you need to know what to do with them. In any event, you should be self-critical: if you get the report “publish as is” or a similar positive evaluation, do not image that your manuscript is perfect. Possibly the reviewer was not competent or was very sloppy in assessing your manuscript. Believe the positive evaluations only when you get two or three of them!

The other extreme may be a report saying “this is a very weak manuscript that should not be published”, without giving specific criticism. Such a report is not helpful and the editor must take the blame for accepting it and passing it to the author. Harsh criticisms require detailed justification, just as extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Fortunately, most reviewers take their job very seriously and deliver clear and detailed reports. You, the author, should always presume that the reviewers are trying to help you to improve your manuscript. They are not your enemy, but on your side, and they are fair. If you do identify clear signs of unfairness, then you should turn to the editor and ask for further reports. It often happens that the first reaction of an author is “oh, this reviewer has completely misunderstood me” and then starts to write a long rebuttal to the editor, explaining all the misunderstandings! However, since reviewers are experts in their field, the author should realize that a likelier explanation of a poor review is the poor quality of the manuscript!

Of course, it really may be true that a reviewer has misunderstood a manuscript. However, in most cases, it is my experience as an editor that the misunderstandings result from deficiencies of the manuscript, such as confusing phrases. Therefore, it is my advice to ask yourself how this misunderstanding could have happened. Do not blame the reviewer; think about your own text!

When you prepare the revised manuscript, follow carefully the advice of the reviewers. In the revised manuscript, you should highlight all the revised parts, which makes it easy for the editor and reviewers to see how you have responded. Your revised manuscript also needs to be accompanied by a detailed document (rebuttal) in which you list the changes and give your explanations for the revisions. Certainly, you are not obliged to do everything as requested by the reviewers. If you have good arguments against the reviewer’s proposals, bring them forward, and it will be up to the editor and reviewers to accept or to reject them.

It goes without saying that it is unacceptable to submit a rejected manuscript to another journal (sometimes even the same journal) without any revisions. This is profoundly disrespectful. When a manuscript has been rejected by a journal, you are of course free to submit it elsewhere, but you need to pay attention to the previous reviews.

Conclusions

Writing a scientific paper is an art as well as a science. With all its dry scientific data and equations, it must nevertheless provide an exciting and fascinating story, in which the leitmotif is present in all parts. It should never be boring.

Publishing scientific results is a very serious task and authors must adhere to the highest ethical standards. It is neither a game nor a routine. Always remember that a published paper will remain forever attached to your name. Do not try to split your work into several pieces to increase the number of your publications. The scientific community is already overwhelmed by a flood of second-rate “minimalist” papers. Reviewers are also inundated with reviewing requests. One solid and comprehensive paper is worth much more than five short papers with tedious repetitions.

It is on record that when a young aspirant asked Faraday the secret of his success as a scientific investigator, he replied: “The secret is comprised in three words—work, finish, publish.”

Gladstone JH (1874) Michael Faraday. Macmillan, London, p 122

Csiszar A (2018) The scientific journal. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Book   Google Scholar  

Gordin MD (2015) Scientific babel. The language of science from the fall of Latin to the rise of English. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Google Scholar  

Schoenfeld R (1985) The chemist’s English. VCH, Weinheim

Schoenfeld R (1988) Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 27:1050–1057

Article   Google Scholar  

Wagner C (1974) Methoden der naturwissenschaftlichen Forschung. Wissenschaftsverlag Bibliographisches Institut, Mannheim

Guidelines for safeguarding good research practice. Code of Conduct (September 2018) ISBN 978-3-96827-001-2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, German Research Foundation, Bonn, Germany

Csiszar A (2017) Nature 551:163–165

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Molinié A, Bodenhausen G (2010) Chimia 64:78–89. https://doi.org/10.2533/chimia.2010.78

Ernst RR (2010) Chimia 64:90. https://doi.org/10.2533/chimia.2010.90

Finch A (2010) BioEssays 32:744–747

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Curry S (2018) Nature 554:147

Waltman L, Traag VA (2021) F1000Research 9:366. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.23418.2

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Csiszar A (2016) Nature 532:306–308

Download references

Acknowledgements

The following colleagues have provided very valuable suggestions: Antonio Doménech-Carbó (Valencia), György Inzelt (Budapest), Sigurd Lenzen (Hannover), Michael Hermes (Berlin), Heike Kahlert (Greifswald), Uwe Schröder (Greifswald) and my wife Gudrun Scholz. I am grateful for general advice from Stephen Fletcher (Loughborough), and especially thankful to him for his elegant language editing. Wilhelmine Klamt (Greifswald) is acknowledged for having drawn the graphic abstract.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Universität Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany

Fritz Scholz

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fritz Scholz .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Scholz, F. Writing and publishing a scientific paper. ChemTexts 8 , 8 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40828-022-00160-7

Download citation

Received : 17 November 2021

Accepted : 03 January 2022

Published : 11 January 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40828-022-00160-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Peer review
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Writing the Scientific Paper

When you write about scientific topics to specialists in a particular scientific field, we call that scientific writing. (When you write to non-specialists about scientific topics, we call that science writing.)

The scientific paper has developed over the past three centuries into a tool to communicate the results of scientific inquiry. The main audience for scientific papers is extremely specialized. The purpose of these papers is twofold: to present information so that it is easy to retrieve, and to present enough information that the reader can duplicate the scientific study. A standard format with six main part helps readers to find expected information and analysis:

• Title--subject and what aspect of the subject was studied.
• Abstract--summary of paper: The main reason for the study, the primary results, the main conclusions
• Introduction-- why the study was undertaken
• Methods and Materials-- how the study was undertaken
• Results-- what was found
• Discussion-- why these results could be significant (what the reasons might be for the patterns found or not found)

There are many ways to approach the writing of a scientific paper, and no one way is right. Many people, however, find that drafting chunks in this order works best: Results, Discussion, Introduction, Materials & Methods, Abstract, and, finally, Title.

The title should be very limited and specific. Really, it should be a pithy summary of the article's main focus.

• "Renal disease susceptibility and hypertension are under independent genetic control in the fawn hooded rat"
• "Territory size in Lincoln's Sparrows ( Melospiza lincolnii )"
• "Replacement of deciduous first premolars and dental eruption in archaeocete whales"
• "The Radio-Frequency Single-Electron Transistor (RF-SET): A Fast and Ultrasensitive Electrometer"

This is a summary of your article. Generally between 50-100 words, it should state the goals, results, and the main conclusions of your study. You should list the parameters of your study (when and where was it conducted, if applicable; your sample size; the specific species, proteins, genes, etc., studied). Think of the process of writing the abstract as taking one or two sentences from each of your sections (an introductory sentence, a sentence stating the specific question addressed, a sentence listing your main techniques or procedures, two or three sentences describing your results, and one sentence describing your main conclusion).

Example One

Hypertension, diabetes and hyperlipidemia are risk factors for life-threatening complications such as end-stage renal disease, coronary artery disease and stroke. Why some patients develop complications is unclear, but only susceptibility genes may be involved. To test this notion, we studied crosses involving the fawn-hooded rat, an animal model of hypertension that develops chronic renal failure. Here, we report the localization of two genes, Rf-1 and Rf-2 , responsible for about half of the genetic variation in key indices of renal impairment. In addition, we localize a gene, Bpfh-1 , responsible for about 26% of the genetic variation in blood pressure. Rf-1 strongly affects the risk of renal impairment, but has no significant effect on blood pressure. Our results show that susceptibility to a complication of hypertension is under at least partially independent genetic control from susceptibility to hypertension itself.

Brown, Donna M, A.P. Provoost, M.J. Daly, E.S. Lander, & H.J. Jacob. 1996. "Renal disease susceptibility and hypertension are under indpendent genetic control in the faun-hooded rat." Nature Genetics , 12(1):44-51.

Example Two

We studied survival of 220 calves of radiocollared moose ( Alces alces ) from parturition to the end of July in southcentral Alaska from 1994 to 1997. Prior studies established that predation by brown bears ( Ursus arctos ) was the primary cause of mortality of moose calves in the region. Our objectives were to characterize vulnerability of moose calves to predation as influenced by age, date, snow depths, and previous reproductive success of the mother. We also tested the hypothesis that survival of twin moose calves was independent and identical to that of single calves. Survival of moose calves from parturition through July was 0.27 ± 0.03 SE, and their daily rate of mortality declined at a near constant rate with age in that period. Mean annual survival was 0.22 ± 0.03 SE. Previous winter's snow depths or survival of the mother's previous calf was not related to neonatal survival. Selection for early parturition was evidenced in the 4 years of study by a 6.3% increase in the hazard of death with each daily increase in parturition date. Although there was no significant difference in survival of twin and single moose calves, most twins that died disappeared together during the first 15 days after birth and independently thereafter, suggesting that predators usually killed both when encountered up to that age.

Key words: Alaska, Alces alces , calf survival, moose, Nelchina, parturition synchrony, predation

Testa, J.W., E.F. Becker, & G.R. Lee. 2000. "Temporal patterns in the survival of twin and single moose ( alces alces ) calves in southcentral Alaska." Journal of Mammalogy , 81(1):162-168.

Example Three

We monitored breeding phenology and population levels of Rana yavapaiensis by use of repeated egg mass censuses and visual encounter surveys at Agua Caliente Canyon near Tucson, Arizona, from 1994 to 1996. Adult counts fluctuated erratically within each year of the study but annual means remained similar. Juvenile counts peaked during the fall recruitment season and fell to near zero by early spring. Rana yavapaiensis deposited eggs in two distinct annual episodes, one in spring (March-May) and a much smaller one in fall (September-October). Larvae from the spring deposition period completed metamorphosis in earlv summer. Over the two years of study, 96.6% of egg masses successfully produced larvae. Egg masses were deposited during periods of predictable, moderate stream flow, but not during seasonal periods when flash flooding or drought were likely to affect eggs or larvae. Breeding phenology of Rana yavapaiensis is particularly well suited for life in desert streams with natural flow regimes which include frequent flash flooding and drought at predictable times. The exotic predators of R. yavapaiensis are less able to cope with fluctuating conditions. Unaltered stream flow regimes that allow natural fluctuations in stream discharge may provide refugia for this declining ranid frog from exotic predators by excluding those exotic species that are unable to cope with brief flash flooding and habitat drying.

Sartorius, Shawn S., and Philip C. Rosen. 2000. "Breeding phenology of the lowland leopard frog ( Rana yavepaiensis )." Southwestern Naturalist , 45(3): 267-273.

Introduction

The introduction is where you sketch out the background of your study, including why you have investigated the question that you have and how it relates to earlier research that has been done in the field. It may help to think of an introduction as a telescoping focus, where you begin with the broader context and gradually narrow to the specific problem addressed by the report. A typical (and very useful) construction of an introduction proceeds as follows:

"Echimyid rodents of the genus Proechimys (spiny rats) often are the most abundant and widespread lowland forest rodents throughout much of their range in the Neotropics (Eisenberg 1989). Recent studies suggested that these rodents play an important role in forest dynamics through their activities as seed predators and dispersers of seeds (Adler and Kestrell 1998; Asquith et al 1997; Forget 1991; Hoch and Adler 1997)." (Lambert and Adler, p. 70)

"Our laboratory has been involved in the analysis of the HLA class II genes and their association with autoimmune disorders such as insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. As part of this work, the laboratory handles a large number of blood samples. In an effort to minimize the expense and urgency of transportation of frozen or liquid blood samples, we have designed a protocol that will preserve the integrity of lymphocyte DNA and enable the transport and storage of samples at ambient temperatures." (Torrance, MacLeod & Hache, p. 64)

"Despite the ubiquity and abundance of P. semispinosus , only two previous studies have assessed habitat use, with both showing a generalized habitat use. [brief summary of these studies]." (Lambert and Adler, p. 70)

"Although very good results have been obtained using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification of DNA extracted from dried blood spots on filter paper (1,4,5,8,9), this preservation method yields limited amounts of DNA and is susceptible to contamination." (Torrance, MacLeod & Hache, p. 64)

"No attempt has been made to quantitatively describe microhabitat characteristics with which this species may be associated. Thus, specific structural features of secondary forests that may promote abundance of spiny rats remains unknown. Such information is essential to understand the role of spiny rats in Neotropical forests, particularly with regard to forest regeneration via interactions with seeds." (Lambert and Adler, p. 71)

"As an alternative, we have been investigating the use of lyophilization ("freeze-drying") of whole blood as a method to preserve sufficient amounts of genomic DNA to perform PCR and Southern Blot analysis." (Torrance, MacLeod & Hache, p. 64)

"We present an analysis of microhabitat use by P. semispinosus in tropical moist forests in central Panama." (Lambert and Adler, p. 71)

"In this report, we summarize our analysis of genomic DNA extracted from lyophilized whole blood." (Torrance, MacLeod & Hache, p. 64)

Methods and Materials

In this section you describe how you performed your study. You need to provide enough information here for the reader to duplicate your experiment. However, be reasonable about who the reader is. Assume that he or she is someone familiar with the basic practices of your field.

It's helpful to both writer and reader to organize this section chronologically: that is, describe each procedure in the order it was performed. For example, DNA-extraction, purification, amplification, assay, detection. Or, study area, study population, sampling technique, variables studied, analysis method.

Include in this section:

• study design: procedures should be listed and described, or the reader should be referred to papers that have already described the used procedure
• particular techniques used and why, if relevant
• modifications of any techniques; be sure to describe the modification
• specialized equipment, including brand-names
• temporal, spatial, and historical description of study area and studied population
• assumptions underlying the study
• statistical methods, including software programs

Example description of activity

Chromosomal DNA was denatured for the first cycle by incubating the slides in 70% deionized formamide; 2x standard saline citrate (SSC) at 70ºC for 2 min, followed by 70% ethanol at -20ºC and then 90% and 100% ethanol at room temperature, followed by air drying. (Rouwendal et al ., p. 79)

Example description of assumptions

We considered seeds left in the petri dish to be unharvested and those scattered singly on the surface of a tile to be scattered and also unharvested. We considered seeds in cheek pouches to be harvested but not cached, those stored in the nestbox to be larderhoarded, and those buried in caching sites within the arena to be scatterhoarded. (Krupa and Geluso, p. 99)

Examples of use of specialized equipment

• Oligonucleotide primers were prepared using the Applied Biosystems Model 318A (Foster City, CA) DNA Synthesizer according to the manufacturers' instructions. (Rouwendal et al ., p.78)
• We first visually reviewed the complete song sample of an individual using spectrograms produced on a Princeton Applied Research Real Time Spectrum Analyzer (model 4512). (Peters et al ., p. 937)

Example of use of a certain technique

Frogs were monitored using visual encounter transects (Crump and Scott, 1994). (Sartorius and Rosen, p. 269)

Example description of statistical analysis

We used Wilcox rank-sum tests for all comparisons of pre-experimental scores and for all comparisons of hue, saturation, and brightness scores between various groups of birds ... All P -values are two-tailed unless otherwise noted. (Brawner et al ., p. 955)

This section presents the facts--what was found in the course of this investigation. Detailed data--measurements, counts, percentages, patterns--usually appear in tables, figures, and graphs, and the text of the section draws attention to the key data and relationships among data. Three rules of thumb will help you with this section:

• present results clearly and logically
• avoid excess verbiage
• consider providing a one-sentence summary at the beginning of each paragraph if you think it will help your reader understand your data

Remember to use table and figures effectively. But don't expect these to stand alone.

Some examples of well-organized and easy-to-follow results:

• Size of the aquatic habitat at Agua Caliente Canyon varied dramatically throughout the year. The site contained three rockbound tinajas (bedrock pools) that did not dry during this study. During periods of high stream discharge seven more seasonal pools and intermittent stretches of riffle became available. Perennial and seasonal pool levels remained stable from late February through early May. Between mid-May and mid-July seasonal pools dried until they disappeared. Perennial pools shrank in surface area from a range of 30-60 m² to 3-5- M². (Sartorius and Rosen, Sept. 2000: 269)

Notice how the second sample points out what is important in the accompanying figure. It makes us aware of relationships that we may not have noticed quickly otherwise and that will be important to the discussion.

A similar test result is obtained with a primer derived from the human ß-satellite... This primer (AGTGCAGAGATATGTCACAATG-CCCC: Oligo 435) labels 6 sites in the PRINS reaction: the chromosomes 1, one pair of acrocentrics and, more weakly, the chromosomes 9 (Fig. 2a). After 10 cycles of PCR-IS, the number of sites labeled has doubled (Fig. 2b); after 20 cycles, the number of sites labeled is the same but the signals are stronger (Fig. 2c) (Rouwendal et al ., July 93:80).

Related Information: Use Tables and Figures Effectively

Do not repeat all of the information in the text that appears in a table, but do summarize it. For example, if you present a table of temperature measurements taken at various times, describe the general pattern of temperature change and refer to the table.

"The temperature of the solution increased rapidly at first, going from 50º to 80º in the first three minutes (Table 1)."

You don't want to list every single measurement in the text ("After one minute, the temperature had risen to 55º. After two minutes, it had risen to 58º," etc.). There is no hard and fast rule about when to report all measurements in the text and when to put the measurements in a table and refer to them, but use your common sense. Remember that readers have all that data in the accompanying tables and figures, so your task in this section is to highlight key data, changes, or relationships.

In this section you discuss your results. What aspect you choose to focus on depends on your results and on the main questions addressed by them. For example, if you were testing a new technique, you will want to discuss how useful this technique is: how well did it work, what are the benefits and drawbacks, etc. If you are presenting data that appear to refute or support earlier research, you will want to analyze both your own data and the earlier data--what conditions are different? how much difference is due to a change in the study design, and how much to a new property in the study subject? You may discuss the implication of your research--particularly if it has a direct bearing on a practical issue, such as conservation or public health.

This section centers on speculation . However, this does not free you to present wild and haphazard guesses. Focus your discussion around a particular question or hypothesis. Use subheadings to organize your thoughts, if necessary.

This section depends on a logical organization so readers can see the connection between your study question and your results. One typical approach is to make a list of all the ideas that you will discuss and to work out the logical relationships between them--what idea is most important? or, what point is most clearly made by your data? what ideas are subordinate to the main idea? what are the connections between ideas?

Achieving the Scientific Voice

Eight tips will help you match your style for most scientific publications.

• Develop a precise vocabulary: read the literature to become fluent, or at least familiar with, the sort of language that is standard to describe what you're trying to describe.
• Once you've labeled an activity, a condition, or a period of time, use that label consistently throughout the paper. Consistency is more important than creativity.
• Define your terms and your assumptions.
• Include all the information the reader needs to interpret your data.
• Remember, the key to all scientific discourse is that it be reproducible . Have you presented enough information clearly enough that the reader could reproduce your experiment, your research, or your investigation?
• When describing an activity, break it down into elements that can be described and labeled, and then present them in the order they occurred.
• When you use numbers, use them effectively. Don't present them so that they cause more work for the reader.
• Include details before conclusions, but only include those details you have been able to observe by the methods you have described. Do not include your feelings, attitudes, impressions, or opinions.
• Research your format and citations: do these match what have been used in current relevant journals?
• Run a spellcheck and proofread carefully. Read your paper out loud, and/ or have a friend look over it for misspelled words, missing words, etc.

Applying the Principles, Example 1

The following example needs more precise information. Look at the original and revised paragraphs to see how revising with these guidelines in mind can make the text clearer and more informative:

Before: Each male sang a definite number of songs while singing. They start with a whistle and then go from there. Each new song is always different, but made up an overall repertoire that was completed before starting over again. In 16 cases (84%), no new songs were sung after the first 20, even though we counted about 44 songs for each bird.

After: Each male used a discrete number of song types in his singing. Each song began with an introductory whistle, followed by a distinctive, complex series of fluty warbles (Fig. 1). Successive songs were always different, and five of the 19 males presented their entire song repertoire before repeating any of their song types (i.e., the first IO recorded songs revealed the entire repertoire of 10 song types). Each song type recurred in long sequences of singing, so that we could be confident that we had recorded the entire repertoire of commonly used songs by each male. For 16 of the 19 males, no new song types were encountered after the first 20 songs, even though we analyzed and average of 44 songs/male (range 30-59).

Applying the Principles, Example 2

In this set of examples, even a few changes in wording result in a more precise second version. Look at the original and revised paragraphs to see how revising with these guidelines in mind can make the text clearer and more informative:

Before: The study area was on Mt. Cain and Maquilla Peak in British Columbia, Canada. The study area is about 12,000 ha of coastal montane forest. The area is both managed and unmanaged and ranges from 600-1650m. The most common trees present are mountain hemlock ( Tsuga mertensiana ), western hemlock ( Tsuga heterophylla ), yellow cedar ( Chamaecyparis nootkatensis ), and amabilis fir ( Abies amabilis ).

After: The study took place on Mt. Cain and Maquilla Peak (50'1 3'N, 126'1 8'W), Vancouver Island, British Columbia. The study area encompassed 11,800 ha of coastal montane forest. The landscape consisted of managed and unmanaged stands of coastal montane forest, 600-1650 m in elevation. The dominant tree species included mountain hemlock ( Tsuga mertensiana ), western hemlock ( Tsuga heterophylla ), yellow cedar ( Chamaecyparis nootkatensis ), and amabilis fir ( Abies amabilis ).

Two Tips for Sentence Clarity

Although you will want to consider more detailed stylistic revisions as you become more comfortable with scientific writing, two tips can get you started:

First, the verb should follow the subject as soon as possible.

Really Hard to Read : "The smallest of the URF's (URFA6L), a 207-nucleotide (nt) reading frame overlapping out of phase the NH2- terminal portion of the adenosinetriphosphatase (ATPase) subunit 6 gene has been identified as the animal equivalent of the recently discovered yeast H+-ATPase subunit gene."

Less Hard to Read : "The smallest of the UR-F's is URFA6L, a 207-nucleotide (nt) reading frame overlapping out of phase the NH2-terminal portion of the adenosinetriphosphatase (ATPase) subunit 6 gene; it has been identified as the animal equivalent of the recently discovered yeast H+-ATPase subunit 8 gene."

Second, place familiar information first in a clause, a sentence, or a paragraph, and put the new and unfamiliar information later.

More confusing : The epidermis, the dermis, and the subcutaneous layer are the three layers of the skin. A layer of dead skin cells makes up the epidermis, which forms the body's shield against the world. Blood vessels, carrying nourishment, and nerve endings, which relay information about the outside world, are found in the dermis. Sweat glands and fat cells make up the third layer, the subcutaneous layer.

Less confusing : The skin consists of three layers: the epidermis, the dermis, and the subcutaneous layer. The epidermis is made up of dead skin cells, and forms a protective shield between the body and the world. The dermis contains the blood vessels and nerve endings that nourish the skin and make it receptive to outside stimuli. The subcutaneous layer contains the sweat glands and fat cells which perform other functions of the skin.

Bibliography

• Scientific Writing for Graduate Students . F. P. Woodford. Bethesda, MD: Council of Biology Editors, 1968. [A manual on the teaching of writing to graduate students--very clear and direct.]
• Scientific Style and Format . Council of Biology Editors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
• "The science of scientific writing." George Gopen and Judith Swann. The American Scientist , Vol. 78, Nov.-Dec. 1990. Pp 550-558.
• "What's right about scientific writing." Alan Gross and Joseph Harmon. The Scientist , Dec. 6 1999. Pp. 20-21.
• "A Quick Fix for Figure Legends and Table Headings." Donald Kroodsma. The Auk , 117 (4): 1081-1083, 2000.

Wortman-Wunder, Emily, & Kate Kiefer. (1998). Writing the Scientific Paper. Writing@CSU . Colorado State University. https://writing.colostate.edu/resources/writing/guides/.

News alert: UC Berkeley has announced its next university librarian

Secondary menu

• Log in to your Library account
• Hours and Maps
• Connect from Off Campus
• UC Berkeley Home

Search form

How to publish a scientific paper: writing the paper.

• Writing the paper
• Submitting the manuscript
• Editorial process
• Maximizing impact

Image (detail): Subhashish Panigrahi, Wikimedia Commons , CC-BY-SA 4.0

Writing a scientific paper

Before you begin.

• Review the literature: Ensure that the research question has not been investigated before and that the experimental methods are appropriate. Librarians can help!
• Research data management (UC Berkeley): Ensure that your data meet disciplinary guidelines, and that you will be able to comply with funder and journal policies for data deposit and sharing.

Quick writing guides

• 11 steps to structuring a science paper editors will take seriously (Borja 2014, updated 2021)
• The Science of Science Writing (Gopen and Swan 1990)
• Short Guide to Scientific Writing (Sawyer n.d.)
• Ten simple principles for structuring papers (Mensh and Kording 2017)
• Writing workshop program PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 2015; includes general as well as journal-specific guidelines. General guidelines begin at slide 13.

Image (detail): istock/Thomas Shanahan ( Elsevier Connect )

In-depth writing guides and resources

• Nature Masterclass on Scientific Writing and Publishing Requires creating free Nature account, accessing from Berkeley IP address or using the Berkeley VPN with Library Access - Full Tunnel gateway, and enabling popups.
• How to Write a Good Scientific Paper (Mack 2018)
• Writing science: how to write papers that get cited and proposals that get funded (Schimel 2012)
• Graduate Writing Center (UC Berkeley)

Image (detail): Nature Masterclasses

Reporting guidelines

• Digital Curation Centre (DCC): https://www.dcc.ac.uk/guidance/standards/metadata
• Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR): https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/ for human- and animal-subjects research
• FAIRsharing: https://fairsharing.org/standards/

Writing tools

• Manage your citations : Citation managers EndNote, Mendeley, RefWorks, and Zotero (UC Berkeley Library guide)

• Writing + Citing in the Sciences : LaTeX editor Overleaf and citation managers (UC Berkeley Library guide)

• LaTeX in Engineering & Physical Sciences : The document formatting markup language LaTeX, which is especially useful for rendering mathematical and chemical symbols and equations (UC Berkeley Library guide)
• Virtual Online Library Tutorials (VOLT): LaTeX : Self-paced exercises for learning LaTeX

For more help

Writing tips & tools

Writing tips.

Avoid fragmentation (breaking a single study into multiple short papers) and redundant publication (submitting multiple papers that are very similar).

When writing a scientific paper, think about the structure familiar to you from reading scientific papers. A common structure for scientific research articles is termed IMRAD: Introduction, Methods, Results, And Discussion. A fuller outline is provided below:

• Title: most important element; include standard, searchable terms (keywords) to call attention to your work. Articles with short titles describing the results are cited more often (Paiva et al. 2012); cited 200 times (Google Scholar)  
•  What is the problem domain (system under investigation)?
•  What is the specific research question ? 
•  What were the methods and results ? 
•  What are the conclusions ?
• Introduction: describes the general problem domain (system under investigation) and then focuses on the specific research question addressed and/or the hypothesis tested by this paper.  
• Methods and materials: provides enough detail to enable experiment to be reproduced by another researcher in your field. Standard experimental methods can be indicated by a reference to a published protocol. Some journals have adopted STAR Methods (Structured, Transparent, Accessible Reporting), which includes a Key Resources Table listing all reagents, antibodies, cell lines, software, or other resources required for the experiment. Use of identifiers such as Research Resource Identifiers (RRIDs) is strongly encouraged. Protocols can be shared publicly or privately on protocols.io . If they are original they can be published in a protocol journal such as bio-protocol , STAR protocols , or JoVE .  
• Figures: clear and compelling; each figure should tell a single story: Data Visualization Guide (UC Berkeley Library)  
• Discussion: explains meaning and significance of results (how do they advance the field?) and how they relate to the research question; describes limitations and further work suggested by study.  
• Data availability statement: Some publishers require a statement describing how the data can be accessed and reused, or the data protection concerns (such as privacy or commercial sensitivity) that prevent sharing.  
• Acknowledgements: Unless there are separate sections for this information, name funding sources , declare any potential competing interests , and thank contributors who are not co-authors. For human- and animal-subject research, an ethics statement may be required identifying the review committee that approved the study and the relevant guidelines and regulations that governed the research.  
• References : A list of sources cited in your paper. Citations (both in-text and in the reference list) must be accurate and formatted in the journal's required style. Use a citation manager .  
• Supplementary information : supporting technical information (figures, protocols, methods, tables, additional data) too long or detailed to fit into the body of the paper.

General tips:

• first focus on the results (including figures and tables ), discussion and methods (communicating the experimental outcomes, significance and procedures)
• then work on the introduction , abstract and title (increasingly concise summaries of the work).
• Use simple, concrete, active language ("We determined..." not "It was determined that...")
• Start paragraphs with a topic sentence
• Consider your audience: narrowly specialized or interdisciplinary ?
• Be as clear and concise as possible
• Next: Submitting the manuscript >>
• Last Updated: Jan 30, 2024 2:39 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/publish

• Blog Post 11 Tips When Writing Your First Scientific Research Paper

11 Tips When Writing Your First Scientific Research Paper

You may easily guess that writing a research paper for the first time is challenging for novice students. Future scientists do not know where to start, so the work stops or loses its proper organization. We have prepared a step-by-step guide and tips that can help you cope with your first scientific research paper. 

Study the requirements for a paper

Each publisher and institution has its requirements for the research papers they publish. 

Try to focus on:

• the volume of the paper; 
• structure requirements;
• peculiarities of design;
• deadlines for submitting the finished text of the article;
• documents to be submitted along with the article or upon registration.

Choose a topic 

After solving all organizational issues, it is time to start choosing the topic of your future work. When selecting a topic, you should be guided by the principles of novelty, relevance, and uniqueness.

The rules for choosing a topic are as follows:

• The topic should be interesting for the author because if they work on it with inspiration, the reader also feels it. 
• The topic should be narrow, as the average volume of scientific articles does not allow analyzing problems of a broad scale.
• To not overlook the topic, work through several of the most recent articles or monographs on it (this will allow you to assess the degree of study of the problem and “draw out” what will be fresh and relevant to the reader). 
• The topic should be framed with an interesting title so that it catches the reader’s attention.

Collect material for the article

Once you’ve decided on a topic, you need to start gathering materials. You will already have some sources (which you used to choose the subject of your article), and it is worth adding to that list. You can find sources for writing an article in the library or on the Internet. You should be careful with the Internet, as many websites do not offer very good information in terms of reliability. Use only trusted Internet resources (catalogs of famous libraries, university websites, author websites).

Define the goal, the objectives, and its relevance 

The topic is chosen, time is allotted for preparation, but things do not move from the dead point? Take the time to develop work goals, make a plan, and figure out the project’s relevance. It is much easier to achieve all the objectives if they are formulated clearly.

Prepare the introduction and conclusion after writing the paper

 It’s a bad idea to start a project by writing an introduction. If the student hasn’t even begun to understand the chosen topic, how can the introduction and conclusion be informative? Leave these two parts of the paper for later: prepare the project, and you will be more confident about what to expect in the introduction and the conclusion, answering the question “what did you write this paper for?

Articulate your ideas accurately, but avoid being categorical: 

Verbalizing the results of your scientific experiments requires precision and a good command of the professional terms used in a particular field of knowledge. However, it is important to understand that your target audience does not need to be familiar with specific terminology. Accordingly, you should explain the fundamental concepts on which the research is based in an accessible and straightforward manner, avoiding ambiguity and substituting concepts. However, it is essential not to confuse precision with the categorical nature of your scientific inferences. Even the exact sciences cannot always afford to use their own conclusions as indisputable postulates. Your writing style should reflect the understanding that science is not divided into black and white and that any theory is entitled to error and potential for improvement.

When working directly on the text of the paper, we recommend using the following simple, practical tips:

• If you can not write the first sentence, it is better to postpone writing for a better time and do the next stage.
• First, we work on a draft — write down everything that comes into your head, not thinking about the right wording and expressions. The main thing is to catch inspiration, the clarity of thought, ideas, and after finishing it, we put it off for a while.
• Then we begin the first edit of the draft — delete everything unnecessary, and that has a double meaning, and again put away the draft for a while.
• It’s time for the second edit of the article to form correct expressions, phrases, style of scientific papers, and understandable thought.
• Finish the work with a draft. When nothing can be thrown out of the article, transfer the text into the category of a fair copy.

It is necessary to write in the language of a scientific article, using special terminology and special speech constructions. In particular, the style of scientific articles is characterized by:

• the thought is precise and logical,
• presentation consecutive, which should be supplemented with introductory words: first, second, therefore, summarizing, in conclusion, etc.
• information is objective and is expressed through impersonal sentence constructions, for example, it is considered, presumably, it can be said, it is necessary to pay attention, it should be emphasized, etc.
• presentation of voluminous numerical data visual, by using graphs, charts, tables, and another available method of presenting the information.

Choose one of the following categories to see related pages:

Share this page.

Austin is the principle web director for Untamed Science and Stone Age Man . He is also the web-director of the series for the High School biology, Middle Grades Science and Elementary Science content. When Austin isn't making amazing content for the web, he's out on his mountain bike or in a canoe.

Science Newsletter:

Full list of our videos.

Teaching Biology?

How to Make Science Films

Read our Wildlife Guide

New From Untamed Science

An official website of the United States government

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.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Sports Phys Ther
• v.7(5); 2012 Oct

HOW TO WRITE A SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE

Barbara j. hoogenboom.

1 Grand Valley State University, Grand Rapids, MI, USA

Robert C. Manske

2 University of Wichita, Wichita, KS, USA

Successful production of a written product for submission to a peer‐reviewed scientific journal requires substantial effort. Such an effort can be maximized by following a few simple suggestions when composing/creating the product for submission. By following some suggested guidelines and avoiding common errors, the process can be streamlined and success realized for even beginning/novice authors as they negotiate the publication process. The purpose of this invited commentary is to offer practical suggestions for achieving success when writing and submitting manuscripts to The International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy and other professional journals.

INTRODUCTION

“The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking” Albert Einstein

Conducting scientific and clinical research is only the beginning of the scholarship of discovery. In order for the results of research to be accessible to other professionals and have a potential effect on the greater scientific community, it must be written and published. Most clinical and scientific discovery is published in peer‐reviewed journals, which are those that utilize a process by which an author's peers, or experts in the content area, evaluate the manuscript. Following this review the manuscript is recommended for publication, revision or rejection. It is the rigor of this review process that makes scientific journals the primary source of new information that impacts clinical decision‐making and practice. 1 , 2

The task of writing a scientific paper and submitting it to a journal for publication is a time‐consuming and often daunting task. 3 , 4 Barriers to effective writing include lack of experience, poor writing habits, writing anxiety, unfamiliarity with the requirements of scholarly writing, lack of confidence in writing ability, fear of failure, and resistance to feedback. 5 However, the very process of writing can be a helpful tool for promoting the process of scientific thinking, 6 , 7 and effective writing skills allow professionals to participate in broader scientific conversations. Furthermore, peer review manuscript publication systems requiring these technical writing skills can be developed and improved with practice. 8 Having an understanding of the process and structure used to produce a peer‐reviewed publication will surely improve the likelihood that a submitted manuscript will result in a successful publication.

Clear communication of the findings of research is essential to the growth and development of science 3 and professional practice. The culmination of the publication process provides not only satisfaction for the researcher and protection of intellectual property, but also the important function of dissemination of research results, new ideas, and alternate thought; which ultimately facilitates scholarly discourse. In short, publication of scientific papers is one way to advance evidence‐based practice in many disciplines, including sports physical therapy. Failure to publish important findings significantly diminishes the potential impact that those findings may have on clinical practice. 9

BASICS OF MANUSCRIPT PREPARATION & GENERAL WRITING TIPS

To begin it might be interesting to learn why reviewers accept manuscripts! Reviewers consider the following five criteria to be the most important in decisions about whether to accept manuscripts for publication: 1) the importance, timeliness, relevance, and prevalence of the problem addressed; 2) the quality of the writing style (i.e., that it is well‐written, clear, straightforward, easy to follow, and logical); 3) the study design applied (i.e., that the design was appropriate, rigorous, and comprehensive); 4) the degree to which the literature review was thoughtful, focused, and up‐to‐date; and 5) the use of a sufficiently large sample. 10 For these statements to be true there are also reasons that reviewers reject manuscripts. The following are the top five reasons for rejecting papers: 1) inappropriate, incomplete, or insufficiently described statistics; 2) over‐interpretation of results; 3) use of inappropriate, suboptimal, or insufficiently described populations or instruments; 4) small or biased samples; and 5) text that is poorly written or difficult to follow. 10 , 11 With these reasons for acceptance or rejection in mind, it is time to review basics and general writing tips to be used when performing manuscript preparation.

“Begin with the end in mind” . When you begin writing about your research, begin with a specific target journal in mind. 12 Every scientific journal should have specific lists of manuscript categories that are preferred for their readership. The IJSPT seeks to provide readership with current information to enhance the practice of sports physical therapy. Therefore the manuscript categories accepted by IJSPT include: Original research; Systematic reviews of literature; Clinical commentary and Current concept reviews; Case reports; Clinical suggestions and unique practice techniques; and Technical notes. Once a decision has been made to write a manuscript, compose an outline that complies with the requirements of the target submission journal and has each of the suggested sections. This means carefully checking the submission criteria and preparing your paper in the exact format of the journal to which you intend to submit. Be thoughtful about the distinction between content (what you are reporting) and structure (where it goes in the manuscript). Poor placement of content confuses the reader (reviewer) and may cause misinterpretation of content. 3 , 5

It may be helpful to follow the IMRaD format for writing scientific manuscripts. This acronym stands for the sections contained within the article: Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. Each of these areas of the manuscript will be addressed in this commentary.

Many accomplished authors write their results first, followed by an introduction and discussion, in an attempt to “stay true” to their results and not stray into additional areas. Typically the last two portions to be written are the conclusion and the abstract.

The ability to accurately describe ideas, protocols/procedures, and outcomes are the pillars of scientific writing . Accurate and clear expression of your thoughts and research information should be the primary goal of scientific writing. 12 Remember that accuracy and clarity are even more important when trying to get complicated ideas across. Contain your literature review, ideas, and discussions to your topic, theme, model, review, commentary, or case. Avoid vague terminology and too much prose. Use short rather than long sentences. If jargon has to be utilized keep it to a minimum and explain the terms you do use clearly. 13

Write with a measure of formality, using scientific language and avoiding conjunctions, slang, and discipline or regionally specific nomenclature or terms (e.g. exercise nicknames). For example, replace the term “Monster walks” with “closed‐chain hip abduction with elastic resistance around the thighs”. You may later refer to the exercise as “also known as Monster walks” if you desire.

Avoid first person language and instead write using third person language. Some journals do not ascribe to this requirement, and allow first person references, however, IJSPT prefers use of third person. For example, replace “We determined that…” with “The authors determined that….”.

For novice writers, it is really helpful to seek a reading mentor that will help you pre‐read your submission. Problems such as improper use of grammar, tense, and spelling are often a cause of rejection by reviewers. Despite the content of the study these easily fixed errors suggest that the authors created the manuscript with less thought leading reviewers to think that the manuscript may also potentially have erroneous findings as well. A review from a second set of trained eyes will often catch these errors missed by the original authors. If English is not your first language, the editorial staff at IJSPT suggests that you consult with someone with the relevant expertise to give you guidance on English writing conventions, verb tense, and grammar. Excellent writing in English is hard, even for those of us for whom it is our first language!

Use figures and graphics to your advantage . ‐ Consider the use of graphic/figure representation of data and important procedures or exercises. Tables should be able to stand alone and be completely understandable at a quick glance. Understanding a table should not require careful review of the manuscript! Figures dramatically enhance the graphic appeal of a scientific paper. Many formats for graphic presentation are acceptable, including graphs, charts, tables, and pictures or videos. Photographs should be clear, free of clutter or extraneous background distractions and be taken with models wearing simple clothing. Color photographs are preferred. Digital figures (Scans or existing files as well as new photographs) must be at least 300dpi. All photographs should be provided as separate files (jpeg or tif preferred) and not be embedded in the paper. Quality and clarity of figures are essential for reproduction purposes and should be considered before taking images for the manuscript.

A video of an exercise or procedure speaks a thousand words. Please consider using short video clips as descriptive additions to your paper. They will be placed on the IJSPT website and accompany your paper. The video clips must be submitted in MPEG‐1, MPEG‐2, Quicktime (.mov), or Audio/Video Interface (.avi) formats. Maximum cumulative length of videos is 5 minutes. Each video segment may not exceed 50 MB, and each video clip must be saved as a separate file and clearly identified. Formulate descriptive figure/video and Table/chart/graph titles and place them on a figure legend document. Carefully consider placement of, naming of, and location of figures. It makes the job of the editors much easier!

Avoid Plagiarism and inadvertent lack of citations. Finally, use citations to your benefit. Cite frequently in order to avoid any plagiarism. The bottom line: If it is not your original idea, give credit where credit is due . When using direct quotations, provide not only the number of the citation, but the page where the quote was found. All citations should appear in text as a superscripted number followed by punctuation. It is the authors' responsibility to fully ensure all references are cited in completed form, in an accurate location. Please carefully follow the instructions for citations and check that all references in your reference list are cited in the paper and that all citations in the paper appear correctly in the reference list. Please go to IJSPT submission guidelines for full information on the format for citations.

Sometimes written as an afterthought, the abstract is of extreme importance as in many instances this section is what is initially previewed by readership to determine if the remainder of the article is worth reading. This is the authors opportunity to draw the reader into the study and entice them to read the rest of the article. The abstract is a summary of the article or study written in 3 rd person allowing the readers to get a quick glance of what the contents of the article include. Writing an abstract is rather challenging as being brief, accurate and concise are requisite. The headings and structure for an abstract are usually provided in the instructions for authors. In some instances, the abstract may change slightly pending content revisions required during the peer review process. Therefore it often works well to complete this portion of the manuscript last. Remember the abstract should be able to stand alone and should be as succinct as possible. 14

Introduction and Review of Literature

The introduction is one of the more difficult portions of the manuscript to write. Past studies are used to set the stage or provide the reader with information regarding the necessity of the represented project. For an introduction to work properly, the reader must feel that the research question is clear, concise, and worthy of study.

A competent introduction should include at least four key concepts: 1) significance of the topic, 2) the information gap in the available literature associated with the topic, 3) a literature review in support of the key questions, 4) subsequently developed purposes/objectives and hypotheses. 9

When constructing a review of the literature, be attentive to “sticking” or “staying true” to your topic at hand. Don't reach or include too broad of a literature review. For example, do not include extraneous information about performance or prevention if your research does not actually address those things. The literature review of a scientific paper is not an exhaustive review of all available knowledge in a given field of study. That type of thorough review should be left to review articles or textbook chapters. Throughout the introduction (and later in the discussion!) remind yourself that a paper, existing evidence, or results of a paper cannot draw conclusions, demonstrate, describe, or make judgments, only PEOPLE (authors) can. “The evidence demonstrates that” should be stated, “Smith and Jones, demonstrated that….”

Conclude your introduction with a solid statement of your purpose(s) and your hypothesis(es), as appropriate. The purpose and objectives should clearly relate to the information gap associated with the given manuscript topic discussed earlier in the introduction section. This may seem repetitive, but it actually is helpful to ensure the reader clearly sees the evolution, importance, and critical aspects of the study at hand See Table 1 for examples of well‐stated purposes.

Examples of well-stated purposes by submission type.

The methods section should clearly describe the specific design of the study and provide clear and concise description of the procedures that were performed. The purpose of sufficient detail in the methods section is so that an appropriately trained person would be able to replicate your experiments. 15 There should be complete transparency when describing the study. To assist in writing and manuscript preparation there are several checklists or guidelines that are available on the IJSPT website. The CONSORT guidelines can be used when developing and reporting a randomized controlled trial. 16 The STARD checklist was developed for designing a diagnostic accuracy study. 17 The PRISMA checklist was developed for use when performing a meta‐analyses or systematic review. 18 A clear methods section should contain the following information: 1) the population and equipment used in the study, 2) how the population and equipment were prepared and what was done during the study, 3) the protocol used, 4) the outcomes and how they were measured, 5) the methods used for data analysis. Initially a brief paragraph should explain the overall procedures and study design. Within this first paragraph there is generally a description of inclusion and exclusion criteria which help the reader understand the population used. Paragraphs that follow should describe in more detail the procedures followed for the study. A clear description of how data was gathered is also helpful. For example were data gathered prospectively or retrospectively? Who if anyone was blinded, and where and when was the actual data collected?

Although it is a good idea for the authors to have justification and a rationale for their procedures, these should be saved for inclusion into the discussion section, not to be discussed in the methods section. However, occasionally studies supporting components of the methods section such as reliability of tests, or validation of outcome measures may be included in the methods section.

The final portion of the methods section will include the statistical methods used to analyze the data. 19 This does not mean that the actual results should be discussed in the methods section, as they have an entire section of their own!

Most scientific journals support the need for all projects involving humans or animals to have up‐to‐date documentation of ethical approval. 20 The methods section should include a clear statement that the researchers have obtained approval from an appropriate institutional review board.

Results, Discussion, and Conclusions

In most journals the results section is separate from the discussion section. It is important that you clearly distinguish your results from your discussion. The results section should describe the results only. The discussion section should put those results into a broader context. Report your results neutrally, as you “found them”. Again, be thoughtful about content and structure. Think carefully about where content is placed in the overall structure of your paper. It is not appropriate to bring up additional results, not discussed in the results section, in the discussion. All results must first be described/presented and then discussed. Thus, the discussion should not simply be a repeat of the results section. Carefully discuss where your information is similar or different from other published evidence and why this might be so. What was different in methods or analysis, what was similar?

As previously stated, stick to your topic at hand, and do not overstretch your discussion! One of the major pitfalls in writing the discussion section is overstating the significance of your findings 4 or making very strong statements. For example, it is better to say: “Findings of the current study support….” or “these findings suggest…” than, “Findings of the current study prove that…” or “this means that….”. Maintain a sense of humbleness, as nothing is without question in the outcomes of any type of research, in any discipline! Use words like “possibly”, “likely” or “suggests” to soften findings. 12

Do not discuss extraneous ideas, concepts, or information not covered by your topic/paper/commentary. Be sure to carefully address all relevant results, not just the statistically significant ones or the ones that support your hypotheses. When you must resort to speculation or opinion, be certain to state that up front using phrases such as “we therefore speculate” or “in the authors' opinion”.

Remember, just as in the introduction and literature review, evidence or results cannot draw conclusions, just as previously stated, only people, scientists, researchers, and authors can!

Finish with a concise, 3‐5 sentence conclusion paragraph. This is not just a restatement of your results, rather is comprised of some final, summative statements that reflect the flow and outcomes of the entire paper. Do not include speculative statements or additional material; however, based upon your findings a statement about potential changes in clinical practice or future research opportunities can be provided here.

CONCLUSIONS

Writing for publication can be a challenging yet satisfying endeavor. The ability to examine, relate, and interlink evidence, as well as to provide a peer‐reviewed, disseminated product of your research labors can be rewarding. A few suggestions have been offered in this commentary that may assist the novice or the developing writer to attempt, polish, and perfect their approach to scholarly writing.

How to Write an Essay Introduction (with Examples)   

The introduction of an essay plays a critical role in engaging the reader and providing contextual information about the topic. It sets the stage for the rest of the essay, establishes the tone and style, and motivates the reader to continue reading. 

Table of Contents

What is an essay introduction , what to include in an essay introduction, how to create an essay structure , step-by-step process for writing an essay introduction , how to write an introduction paragraph , how to write a hook for your essay , how to include background information , how to write a thesis statement .

• Argumentative Essay Introduction Example: 
• Expository Essay Introduction Example 

Literary Analysis Essay Introduction Example

Check and revise – checklist for essay introduction , key takeaways , frequently asked questions .

An introduction is the opening section of an essay, paper, or other written work. It introduces the topic and provides background information, context, and an overview of what the reader can expect from the rest of the work. 1 The key is to be concise and to the point, providing enough information to engage the reader without delving into excessive detail. 

The essay introduction is crucial as it sets the tone for the entire piece and provides the reader with a roadmap of what to expect. Here are key elements to include in your essay introduction: 

• Hook : Start with an attention-grabbing statement or question to engage the reader. This could be a surprising fact, a relevant quote, or a compelling anecdote. 
• Background information : Provide context and background information to help the reader understand the topic. This can include historical information, definitions of key terms, or an overview of the current state of affairs related to your topic. 
• Thesis statement : Clearly state your main argument or position on the topic. Your thesis should be concise and specific, providing a clear direction for your essay. 

Before we get into how to write an essay introduction, we need to know how it is structured. The structure of an essay is crucial for organizing your thoughts and presenting them clearly and logically. It is divided as follows: 2  

• Introduction:  The introduction should grab the reader’s attention with a hook, provide context, and include a thesis statement that presents the main argument or purpose of the essay.  
• Body:  The body should consist of focused paragraphs that support your thesis statement using evidence and analysis. Each paragraph should concentrate on a single central idea or argument and provide evidence, examples, or analysis to back it up.  
• Conclusion:  The conclusion should summarize the main points and restate the thesis differently. End with a final statement that leaves a lasting impression on the reader. Avoid new information or arguments. 

Here’s a step-by-step guide on how to write an essay introduction: 

• Start with a Hook : Begin your introduction paragraph with an attention-grabbing statement, question, quote, or anecdote related to your topic. The hook should pique the reader’s interest and encourage them to continue reading. 
• Provide Background Information : This helps the reader understand the relevance and importance of the topic. 
• State Your Thesis Statement : The last sentence is the main argument or point of your essay. It should be clear, concise, and directly address the topic of your essay. 
• Preview the Main Points : This gives the reader an idea of what to expect and how you will support your thesis. 
• Keep it Concise and Clear : Avoid going into too much detail or including information not directly relevant to your topic. 
• Revise : Revise your introduction after you’ve written the rest of your essay to ensure it aligns with your final argument. 

Here’s an example of an essay introduction paragraph about the importance of education: 

Education is often viewed as a fundamental human right and a key social and economic development driver. As Nelson Mandela once famously said, “Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.” It is the key to unlocking a wide range of opportunities and benefits for individuals, societies, and nations. In today’s constantly evolving world, education has become even more critical. It has expanded beyond traditional classroom learning to include digital and remote learning, making education more accessible and convenient. This essay will delve into the importance of education in empowering individuals to achieve their dreams, improving societies by promoting social justice and equality, and driving economic growth by developing a skilled workforce and promoting innovation. 

This introduction paragraph example includes a hook (the quote by Nelson Mandela), provides some background information on education, and states the thesis statement (the importance of education). 

This is one of the key steps in how to write an essay introduction. Crafting a compelling hook is vital because it sets the tone for your entire essay and determines whether your readers will stay interested. A good hook draws the reader in and sets the stage for the rest of your essay.  

• Avoid Dry Fact : Instead of simply stating a bland fact, try to make it engaging and relevant to your topic. For example, if you’re writing about the benefits of exercise, you could start with a startling statistic like, “Did you know that regular exercise can increase your lifespan by up to seven years?” 
• Avoid Using a Dictionary Definition : While definitions can be informative, they’re not always the most captivating way to start an essay. Instead, try to use a quote, anecdote, or provocative question to pique the reader’s interest. For instance, if you’re writing about freedom, you could begin with a quote from a famous freedom fighter or philosopher. 
• Do Not Just State a Fact That the Reader Already Knows : This ties back to the first point—your hook should surprise or intrigue the reader. For Here’s an introduction paragraph example, if you’re writing about climate change, you could start with a thought-provoking statement like, “Despite overwhelming evidence, many people still refuse to believe in the reality of climate change.” 

Including background information in the introduction section of your essay is important to provide context and establish the relevance of your topic. When writing the background information, you can follow these steps: 

• Start with a General Statement:  Begin with a general statement about the topic and gradually narrow it down to your specific focus. For example, when discussing the impact of social media, you can begin by making a broad statement about social media and its widespread use in today’s society, as follows: “Social media has become an integral part of modern life, with billions of users worldwide.” 
• Define Key Terms : Define any key terms or concepts that may be unfamiliar to your readers but are essential for understanding your argument. 
• Provide Relevant Statistics:  Use statistics or facts to highlight the significance of the issue you’re discussing. For instance, “According to a report by Statista, the number of social media users is expected to reach 4.41 billion by 2025.” 
• Discuss the Evolution:  Mention previous research or studies that have been conducted on the topic, especially those that are relevant to your argument. Mention key milestones or developments that have shaped its current impact. You can also outline some of the major effects of social media. For example, you can briefly describe how social media has evolved, including positives such as increased connectivity and issues like cyberbullying and privacy concerns. 
• Transition to Your Thesis:  Use the background information to lead into your thesis statement, which should clearly state the main argument or purpose of your essay. For example, “Given its pervasive influence, it is crucial to examine the impact of social media on mental health.” 

A thesis statement is a concise summary of the main point or claim of an essay, research paper, or other type of academic writing. It appears near the end of the introduction. Here’s how to write a thesis statement: 

• Identify the topic:  Start by identifying the topic of your essay. For example, if your essay is about the importance of exercise for overall health, your topic is “exercise.” 
• State your position:  Next, state your position or claim about the topic. This is the main argument or point you want to make. For example, if you believe that regular exercise is crucial for maintaining good health, your position could be: “Regular exercise is essential for maintaining good health.” 
• Support your position:  Provide a brief overview of the reasons or evidence that support your position. These will be the main points of your essay. For example, if you’re writing an essay about the importance of exercise, you could mention the physical health benefits, mental health benefits, and the role of exercise in disease prevention. 
• Make it specific:  Ensure your thesis statement clearly states what you will discuss in your essay. For example, instead of saying, “Exercise is good for you,” you could say, “Regular exercise, including cardiovascular and strength training, can improve overall health and reduce the risk of chronic diseases.” 

Examples of essay introduction 

Here are examples of essay introductions for different types of essays: 

Argumentative Essay Introduction Example:  

Topic: Should the voting age be lowered to 16? 

“The question of whether the voting age should be lowered to 16 has sparked nationwide debate. While some argue that 16-year-olds lack the requisite maturity and knowledge to make informed decisions, others argue that doing so would imbue young people with agency and give them a voice in shaping their future.” 

Expository Essay Introduction Example  

Topic: The benefits of regular exercise 

“In today’s fast-paced world, the importance of regular exercise cannot be overstated. From improving physical health to boosting mental well-being, the benefits of exercise are numerous and far-reaching. This essay will examine the various advantages of regular exercise and provide tips on incorporating it into your daily routine.” 

Text: “To Kill a Mockingbird” by Harper Lee 

“Harper Lee’s novel, ‘To Kill a Mockingbird,’ is a timeless classic that explores themes of racism, injustice, and morality in the American South. Through the eyes of young Scout Finch, the reader is taken on a journey that challenges societal norms and forces characters to confront their prejudices. This essay will analyze the novel’s use of symbolism, character development, and narrative structure to uncover its deeper meaning and relevance to contemporary society.” 

• Engaging and Relevant First Sentence : The opening sentence captures the reader’s attention and relates directly to the topic. 
• Background Information : Enough background information is introduced to provide context for the thesis statement. 
• Definition of Important Terms : Key terms or concepts that might be unfamiliar to the audience or are central to the argument are defined. 
• Clear Thesis Statement : The thesis statement presents the main point or argument of the essay. 
• Relevance to Main Body : Everything in the introduction directly relates to and sets up the discussion in the main body of the essay. 

Writing a strong introduction is crucial for setting the tone and context of your essay. Here are the key takeaways for how to write essay introduction: 3  

• Hook the Reader : Start with an engaging hook to grab the reader’s attention. This could be a compelling question, a surprising fact, a relevant quote, or an anecdote. 
• Provide Background : Give a brief overview of the topic, setting the context and stage for the discussion. 
• Thesis Statement : State your thesis, which is the main argument or point of your essay. It should be concise, clear, and specific. 
• Preview the Structure : Outline the main points or arguments to help the reader understand the organization of your essay. 
• Keep it Concise : Avoid including unnecessary details or information not directly related to your thesis. 
• Revise and Edit : Revise your introduction to ensure clarity, coherence, and relevance. Check for grammar and spelling errors. 
• Seek Feedback : Get feedback from peers or instructors to improve your introduction further. 

The purpose of an essay introduction is to give an overview of the topic, context, and main ideas of the essay. It is meant to engage the reader, establish the tone for the rest of the essay, and introduce the thesis statement or central argument.  

An essay introduction typically ranges from 5-10% of the total word count. For example, in a 1,000-word essay, the introduction would be roughly 50-100 words. However, the length can vary depending on the complexity of the topic and the overall length of the essay.

An essay introduction is critical in engaging the reader and providing contextual information about the topic. To ensure its effectiveness, consider incorporating these key elements: a compelling hook, background information, a clear thesis statement, an outline of the essay’s scope, a smooth transition to the body, and optional signposting sentences.  

The process of writing an essay introduction is not necessarily straightforward, but there are several strategies that can be employed to achieve this end. When experiencing difficulty initiating the process, consider the following techniques: begin with an anecdote, a quotation, an image, a question, or a startling fact to pique the reader’s interest. It may also be helpful to consider the five W’s of journalism: who, what, when, where, why, and how.   For instance, an anecdotal opening could be structured as follows: “As I ascended the stage, momentarily blinded by the intense lights, I could sense the weight of a hundred eyes upon me, anticipating my next move. The topic of discussion was climate change, a subject I was passionate about, and it was my first public speaking event. Little did I know , that pivotal moment would not only alter my perspective but also chart my life’s course.” 

Crafting a compelling thesis statement for your introduction paragraph is crucial to grab your reader’s attention. To achieve this, avoid using overused phrases such as “In this paper, I will write about” or “I will focus on” as they lack originality. Instead, strive to engage your reader by substantiating your stance or proposition with a “so what” clause. While writing your thesis statement, aim to be precise, succinct, and clear in conveying your main argument.  

To create an effective essay introduction, ensure it is clear, engaging, relevant, and contains a concise thesis statement. It should transition smoothly into the essay and be long enough to cover necessary points but not become overwhelming. Seek feedback from peers or instructors to assess its effectiveness. 

References  

• Cui, L. (2022). Unit 6 Essay Introduction.  Building Academic Writing Skills . 
• West, H., Malcolm, G., Keywood, S., & Hill, J. (2019). Writing a successful essay.  Journal of Geography in Higher Education ,  43 (4), 609-617. 
• Beavers, M. E., Thoune, D. L., & McBeth, M. (2023). Bibliographic Essay: Reading, Researching, Teaching, and Writing with Hooks: A Queer Literacy Sponsorship. College English, 85(3), 230-242. 

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 21+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.  

Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.  

Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!  

Related Reads:

• What is an Argumentative Essay? How to Write It (With Examples)
• How to Paraphrase Research Papers Effectively

How to Cite Social Media Sources in Academic Writing? 

How long should a chapter be, similarity checks: the author’s guide to plagiarism and responsible writing, you may also like, similarity checks: the author’s guide to plagiarism and..., what is a master’s thesis: a guide for..., should you use ai tools like chatgpt for..., what are the benefits of generative ai for..., how to avoid plagiarism tips and advice for..., plagiarism checkers vs. ai content detection: navigating the..., plagiarism prevention: why you need a plagiarism check..., what is a literature review how to write....

Physics Ph.D. candidate wins 2024 Three Minute Thesis competition

By | Katya Hrichak , Cornell University Graduate School

“I want you to remember a time when you were in a setting where you felt like you didn’t belong. I want you to remember how you felt in that setting, maybe isolated or out of place, and how much you felt like you wanted to continue going back to that setting—probably not much. These feelings are all too familiar for undergraduate women pursuing their studies in science, and in physics specifically,” began Meagan Sundstrom, a doctoral candidate in physics at the ninth annual Cornell University Three Minute Thesis (3MT) competition.

Alongside seven other finalists, Sundstrom presented her dissertation research in just three minutes on March 20 to a panel of judges and an audience from across campus while additional friends, family, advisors, and lab mates watched online. In the first in-person Cornell 3MT since 2019, presentations were judged by how clearly and compellingly students summarized their research to a general audience, using only one static slide.

Sundstrom’s presentation, “Recognizing and Removing Barriers for Women in Physics,” earned her first place and $1,500. Second place and $1,000 was awarded to information science doctoral student Sterling Williams-Ceci for her presentation, “AI Helps us Write – but at What Cost?”

After nearly 60 in-person and 70 virtual audience members cast their ballots, votes were tallied and the People’s Choice Award and $250 were presented to biomedical and biological sciences doctoral candidate Sharada Gopal for her presentation, “Worming Our Way to a Longer Life.”

This year’s judges included Jane Bunker, director of Cornell University Press; Joe Ellis, director of online degree program development at eCornell; David Lodge, the Francis J. DiSalvo Director of the Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability; and Bob Riter, patient advocate for the Cornell Community Cancer Partnership. Organization of the competition and coaching of presenters was provided by the Graduate School Office of Career and Professional Development.

“As grad students, there are a lot of opportunities to give your elevator pitch at conferences and more professional settings to more senior people in your field, and I thought this would be a really cool opportunity for me to try to tailor that pitch to a more general audience—how would I describe my research to my family and friends?—so that was fun,” said Sundstrom.

Being able to “zoom out” and view her topic from a different perspective was also helpful for Sundstrom, who is currently writing her dissertation and appreciates having both formulated a storyline and thought about the broader impacts of her work.

Williams-Ceci similarly enjoyed the chance to speak to a different type of audience than she is used to addressing.

“I hadn’t really had an opportunity in grad school to try communicating to a broad audience, it’s always just to my lab, so I wanted to practice having a chance to really tell a story and not just go through the slides,” she said. “It really helped me know for a fact that I can tell a convincing story about a project that I’ve done.”

Gopal shared that the 3MT was a fun way to combine her longtime artistic interests with her science.

“It seemed like such a fun event. I did a lot of theatre in college so I thought, ‘What can I do artistically here?’ and this seemed like a good mix of my scientific interest and my artistic theatre interests,” she said, adding that she also benefitted from looking at the bigger picture of her work and its impacts.

The 3MT competition was first held in 2008 at the University of Queensland and has since been adopted by over 900 universities in over 85 countries. 3MT challenges research degree students to present a compelling story on their dissertation or thesis and its significance in just three minutes, in language appropriate to a non-specialist audience.

Cornell’s Graduate School first hosted a 3MT competition in 2015 and the event has grown steadily since that time. As the winner of Cornell’s competition, Sundstrom will now go on to compete in northeast regional competitions.

“Our Three Minute Thesis final round is a highlight of the year for those of us in the Graduate School—literally we talk about it all year long,” said Kathryn J. Boor, dean of the Graduate School and vice provost for graduate education. “We look forward to it because it’s just plain fun, and it’s an opportunity for us to watch and learn from our accomplished and creative graduate researchers.”

“I could not possibly be more proud of the work we saw,” she said.

Read the story on the Cornell University Graduate School website.

More News from A&S

Nicholas Kiefer, economist and ‘towering intellect,’ dies at 73

Mars Sample Return a top scientific priority, Lunine testifies

Talk by Italian author on his writing and his papers donated to the library, March 26

Astronomy mourns Mary Mulvanerton, ‘amazing problem-solver’

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 18 March 2024

Techniques for supercharging academic writing with generative AI

• Zhicheng Lin   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6864-6559 1  

Nature Biomedical Engineering ( 2024 ) Cite this article

359 Accesses

62 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Developing world

Generalist large language models can elevate the quality and efficiency of academic writing.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

92,52 € per year

only 7,71 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Amano, T. et al. PLoS Biol. 21 , e3002184 (2023).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Lin, Z. & Li, N. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 18 , 358–377 (2023).

Article   ADS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Lin, Z. R. Soc. Open Sci. 10 , 230658 (2023).

Article   ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Birhane, A., Kasirzadeh, A., Leslie, D. & Wachter, S. Nat. Rev. Phys. 5 , 277–280 (2023).

Article   Google Scholar  

Thirunavukarasu, A. J. et al. Nat. Med. 29 , 1930–1940 (2023).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Lin, Z. Nat. Hum. Behav . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01847-2 (in the press).

Milano, S., McGrane, J. A. & Leonelli, S. Nat. Mach. Intell. 5 , 333–334 (2023).

White, A. D. Nat. Rev. Chem. 7 , 457–458 (2023).

Golan, R., Reddy, R., Muthigi, A. & Ramasamy, R. Nat. Rev. Urol. 20 , 327–328 (2023).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Casal, J. E. & Kessler, M. Res. Meth. Appl. Linguist. 2 , 100068 (2023).

Lin, Z. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.15284 (2024).

Wang, H. et al. Nature 620 , 47–60 (2023).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Dergaa, I., Chamari, K., Zmijewski, P. & Ben Saad, H. Biol. Sport 40 , 615–622 (2023).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Hwang, S. I. et al. Korean J. Radiol. 24 , 952–959 (2023).

Bell, S. BMC Med. 21 , 334 (2023).

Nazari, N., Shabbir, M. S. & Setiawan, R. Heliyon 7 , e07014 (2021).

Yan, D. Educ. Inf. Technol. 28 , 13943–13967 (2023).

Semrl, N. et al. Hum. Reprod. 38 , 2281–2288 (2023).

Chamba, N., Knapen, J. H. & Black, D. Nat. Astron. 6 , 1015–1020 (2022).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Nat. Biomed. Eng . 2 , 53 (2018).

Croxson, P. L., Neeley, L. & Schiller, D. Nat. Hum. Behav. 5 , 1466–1468 (2021).

Luna, R. E. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 21 , 653–654 (2020).

Merow, C., Serra-Diaz, J. M., Enquist, B. J. & Wilson, A. M. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 7 , 960–962 (2023).

Yurkewicz, K. Nat. Rev. Mater. 7 , 673–674 (2022).

King, A. A. J. Manag. Sci. Rep . https://doi.org/10.1177/27550311231187068 (2023).

Patriotta, G. J. Manag. Stud. 54 , 747–759 (2017).

Gernsbacher, M. A. Adv. Meth. Pract. Psych. 1 , 403–414 (2018).

Google Scholar  

Lin, Z. Trends Cogn. Sci. 82 , 85–88 (2024).

Lin, Z. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/s6h58 (2023).

Generative AI in Scholarly Communications: Ethical and Practical Guidelines for the Use of Generative AI in the Publication Process (STM, 2023).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The writing of this Comment was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China STI2030 Major Projects (2021ZD0204200), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (32071045) and the Shenzhen Fundamental Research Program (JCYJ20210324134603010). The author used GPT-4 ( https://chat.openai.com ) and Claude ( https://claude.ai ) alongside prompts from Box 1 to help write earlier versions of the text and to edit it. The text was then developmentally edited by the journal’s Chief Editor with basic-editing and structural-editing assistance from Claude, and checked by the author.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China

Zhicheng Lin

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zhicheng Lin .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Biomedical Engineering thanks Serge Horbach and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Lin, Z. Techniques for supercharging academic writing with generative AI. Nat. Biomed. Eng (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41551-024-01185-8

Download citation

Published : 18 March 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41551-024-01185-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.