writing scientific research papers

How To Write A Research Paper

Step-By-Step Tutorial With Examples + FREE Template

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Expert Reviewer: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | March 2024

For many students, crafting a strong research paper from scratch can feel like a daunting task – and rightly so! In this post, we’ll unpack what a research paper is, what it needs to do , and how to write one – in three easy steps. 🙂 

Overview: Writing A Research Paper

What (exactly) is a research paper.

• How to write a research paper
• Stage 1 : Topic & literature search
• Stage 2 : Structure & outline
• Stage 3 : Iterative writing
• Key takeaways

Let’s start by asking the most important question, “ What is a research paper? ”.

Simply put, a research paper is a scholarly written work where the writer (that’s you!) answers a specific question (this is called a research question ) through evidence-based arguments . Evidence-based is the keyword here. In other words, a research paper is different from an essay or other writing assignments that draw from the writer’s personal opinions or experiences. With a research paper, it’s all about building your arguments based on evidence (we’ll talk more about that evidence a little later).

Now, it’s worth noting that there are many different types of research papers , including analytical papers (the type I just described), argumentative papers, and interpretative papers. Here, we’ll focus on analytical papers , as these are some of the most common – but if you’re keen to learn about other types of research papers, be sure to check out the rest of the blog .

With that basic foundation laid, let’s get down to business and look at how to write a research paper .

Overview: The 3-Stage Process

While there are, of course, many potential approaches you can take to write a research paper, there are typically three stages to the writing process. So, in this tutorial, we’ll present a straightforward three-step process that we use when working with students at Grad Coach.

These three steps are:

• Finding a research topic and reviewing the existing literature
• Developing a provisional structure and outline for your paper, and
• Writing up your initial draft and then refining it iteratively

Let’s dig into each of these.

Need a helping hand?

Step 1: Find a topic and review the literature

As we mentioned earlier, in a research paper, you, as the researcher, will try to answer a question . More specifically, that’s called a research question , and it sets the direction of your entire paper. What’s important to understand though is that you’ll need to answer that research question with the help of high-quality sources – for example, journal articles, government reports, case studies, and so on. We’ll circle back to this in a minute.

The first stage of the research process is deciding on what your research question will be and then reviewing the existing literature (in other words, past studies and papers) to see what they say about that specific research question. In some cases, your professor may provide you with a predetermined research question (or set of questions). However, in many cases, you’ll need to find your own research question within a certain topic area.

Finding a strong research question hinges on identifying a meaningful research gap – in other words, an area that’s lacking in existing research. There’s a lot to unpack here, so if you wanna learn more, check out the plain-language explainer video below.

Once you’ve figured out which question (or questions) you’ll attempt to answer in your research paper, you’ll need to do a deep dive into the existing literature – this is called a “ literature search ”. Again, there are many ways to go about this, but your most likely starting point will be Google Scholar .

If you’re new to Google Scholar, think of it as Google for the academic world. You can start by simply entering a few different keywords that are relevant to your research question and it will then present a host of articles for you to review. What you want to pay close attention to here is the number of citations for each paper – the more citations a paper has, the more credible it is (generally speaking – there are some exceptions, of course).

Ideally, what you’re looking for are well-cited papers that are highly relevant to your topic. That said, keep in mind that citations are a cumulative metric , so older papers will often have more citations than newer papers – just because they’ve been around for longer. So, don’t fixate on this metric in isolation – relevance and recency are also very important.

Beyond Google Scholar, you’ll also definitely want to check out academic databases and aggregators such as Science Direct, PubMed, JStor and so on. These will often overlap with the results that you find in Google Scholar, but they can also reveal some hidden gems – so, be sure to check them out.

Once you’ve worked your way through all the literature, you’ll want to catalogue all this information in some sort of spreadsheet so that you can easily recall who said what, when and within what context. If you’d like, we’ve got a free literature spreadsheet that helps you do exactly that.

Step 2: Develop a structure and outline

With your research question pinned down and your literature digested and catalogued, it’s time to move on to planning your actual research paper .

It might sound obvious, but it’s really important to have some sort of rough outline in place before you start writing your paper. So often, we see students eagerly rushing into the writing phase, only to land up with a disjointed research paper that rambles on in multiple

Now, the secret here is to not get caught up in the fine details . Realistically, all you need at this stage is a bullet-point list that describes (in broad strokes) what you’ll discuss and in what order. It’s also useful to remember that you’re not glued to this outline – in all likelihood, you’ll chop and change some sections once you start writing, and that’s perfectly okay. What’s important is that you have some sort of roadmap in place from the start.

At this stage you might be wondering, “ But how should I structure my research paper? ”. Well, there’s no one-size-fits-all solution here, but in general, a research paper will consist of a few relatively standardised components:

• Introduction
• Literature review
• Methodology

Let’s take a look at each of these.

First up is the introduction section . As the name suggests, the purpose of the introduction is to set the scene for your research paper. There are usually (at least) four ingredients that go into this section – these are the background to the topic, the research problem and resultant research question , and the justification or rationale. If you’re interested, the video below unpacks the introduction section in more detail. 

The next section of your research paper will typically be your literature review . Remember all that literature you worked through earlier? Well, this is where you’ll present your interpretation of all that content . You’ll do this by writing about recent trends, developments, and arguments within the literature – but more specifically, those that are relevant to your research question . The literature review can oftentimes seem a little daunting, even to seasoned researchers, so be sure to check out our extensive collection of literature review content here .

With the introduction and lit review out of the way, the next section of your paper is the research methodology . In a nutshell, the methodology section should describe to your reader what you did (beyond just reviewing the existing literature) to answer your research question. For example, what data did you collect, how did you collect that data, how did you analyse that data and so on? For each choice, you’ll also need to justify why you chose to do it that way, and what the strengths and weaknesses of your approach were.

Now, it’s worth mentioning that for some research papers, this aspect of the project may be a lot simpler . For example, you may only need to draw on secondary sources (in other words, existing data sets). In some cases, you may just be asked to draw your conclusions from the literature search itself (in other words, there may be no data analysis at all). But, if you are required to collect and analyse data, you’ll need to pay a lot of attention to the methodology section. The video below provides an example of what the methodology section might look like.

By this stage of your paper, you will have explained what your research question is, what the existing literature has to say about that question, and how you analysed additional data to try to answer your question. So, the natural next step is to present your analysis of that data . This section is usually called the “results” or “analysis” section and this is where you’ll showcase your findings.

Depending on your school’s requirements, you may need to present and interpret the data in one section – or you might split the presentation and the interpretation into two sections. In the latter case, your “results” section will just describe the data, and the “discussion” is where you’ll interpret that data and explicitly link your analysis back to your research question. If you’re not sure which approach to take, check in with your professor or take a look at past papers to see what the norms are for your programme.

Alright – once you’ve presented and discussed your results, it’s time to wrap it up . This usually takes the form of the “ conclusion ” section. In the conclusion, you’ll need to highlight the key takeaways from your study and close the loop by explicitly answering your research question. Again, the exact requirements here will vary depending on your programme (and you may not even need a conclusion section at all) – so be sure to check with your professor if you’re unsure.

Step 3: Write and refine

Finally, it’s time to get writing. All too often though, students hit a brick wall right about here… So, how do you avoid this happening to you?

Well, there’s a lot to be said when it comes to writing a research paper (or any sort of academic piece), but we’ll share three practical tips to help you get started.

First and foremost , it’s essential to approach your writing as an iterative process. In other words, you need to start with a really messy first draft and then polish it over multiple rounds of editing. Don’t waste your time trying to write a perfect research paper in one go. Instead, take the pressure off yourself by adopting an iterative approach.

Secondly , it’s important to always lean towards critical writing , rather than descriptive writing. What does this mean? Well, at the simplest level, descriptive writing focuses on the “ what ”, while critical writing digs into the “ so what ” – in other words, the implications . If you’re not familiar with these two types of writing, don’t worry! You can find a plain-language explanation here.

Last but not least, you’ll need to get your referencing right. Specifically, you’ll need to provide credible, correctly formatted citations for the statements you make. We see students making referencing mistakes all the time and it costs them dearly. The good news is that you can easily avoid this by using a simple reference manager . If you don’t have one, check out our video about Mendeley, an easy (and free) reference management tool that you can start using today.

Recap: Key Takeaways

We’ve covered a lot of ground here. To recap, the three steps to writing a high-quality research paper are:

• To choose a research question and review the literature
• To plan your paper structure and draft an outline
• To take an iterative approach to writing, focusing on critical writing and strong referencing

Remember, this is just a b ig-picture overview of the research paper development process and there’s a lot more nuance to unpack. So, be sure to grab a copy of our free research paper template to learn more about how to write a research paper.

You Might Also Like:

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

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
• v.25(3); 2014 Oct

How to Write a Scientific Paper: Practical Guidelines

Edgard delvin.

1 Centre de recherche, CHU Sainte-Justine

2 Département de Biochimie, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada

Tahir S. Pillay

3 Department of Chemical Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pretoria

4 Division of Chemical Pathology, University of Cape Town

5 National Health Laboratory Service, CTshwane Academic Division, Pretoria, South Africa

Anthony Newman

6 Life Sciences Department, Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Precise, accurate and clear writing is essential for communicating in health sciences, as publication is an important component in the university criteria for academic promotion and in obtaining funding to support research. In spite of this, the development of writing skills is a subject infrequently included in the curricula of faculties of medicine and allied health sciences. Therefore clinical investigators require tools to fill this gap. The present paper presents a brief historical background to medical publication and practical guidelines for writing scientific papers for acceptance in good journals.

INTRODUCTION

A scientific paper is the formal lasting record of a research process. It is meant to document research protocols, methods, results and conclusions derived from an initial working hypothesis. The first medical accounts date back to antiquity. Imhotep, Pharaoh of the 3 rd Dynasty, could be considered the founder of ancient Egyptian medicine as he has been credited with being the original author of what is now known as the Edwin Smith Papyrus ( Figure 1 ). The Papyrus, by giving some details on cures and anatomical observations, sets the basis of the examination, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of numerous diseases. Closer to the Common Era, in 460 BCE, Hippocrates wrote 70 books on medicine. In 1020, the Golden age of the Muslim Culture, Ibn Sina, known as Avicenna ( Figure 2a ), recorded the Canon of medicine that was to become the most used medical text in Europe and Middle East for almost half a millennium. This was followed in the beginning of the 12 th Century bytheextensivetreatiseofMaimonides( Figure 2b ) (Moses ben Maimon) on Greek and Middle Eastern medicine. Of interest, by the end of the 11 th Century Trotula di Ruggiero, a woman physician, wrote several influential books on women’s ailment. A number of other hallmark treatises also became more accessible, thanks to the introduction of the printing press that allowed standardization of the texts. One example is the De Humani Corporis Fabrica by Vesalius which contains hundreds of illustrations of human dissection. Thomas A Lang provides an excellent concise history of scientific publications [ 1 ]. These were the days when writing and publishing scientific or philosophical works were the privilege of the few and hence there was no or little competition and no recorded peer reviewing system. Times have however changed, and contemporary scientists have to compose with an increasingly harsh competition in attracting editors and publishers attention. As an example, the number of reports and reviews on obesity and diabetes has increased from 400 to close to 4000/year and 50 to 600/year respectively over a period of 20 years ( Figure 3 ). The present article, essentially based on TA Lang’s guide for writing a scientific paper [ 1 ], will summarize the steps involved in the process of writing a scientific report and in increasing the likelihood of its acceptance.

The Edwin Smith Papyrus (≈3000 BCE)

Avicenna and Maimonides

Annual publication load in the field of obesity and diabetes over 20 years.

Reasons for publishing are varied. One may write to achieve a post-graduate degree, to obtain funding for pursuing research or for academic promotion. While all 3 reasons are perfectly legitimate, one must ask whether they are sufficient to be considered by editors, publishers and reviewers. Why then should the scientist write? The main reason is to provide to the scientific community data based on hypotheses that are innovative and thus to advance the understanding in a specific domain. One word of caution however, is that if a set of experiments has not been done or reported, it does not mean that it should be. It may simply reflect a lack of interest in it.

DECIDING ON PUBLISHING AND TARGETING THE JOURNAL

In order to assist with the decision process, pres-ent your work orally first to colleagues in your field who may be more experienced in publishing. This step will help you in gauging whether your work is publishable and in shaping the paper.

Targeting the journal, in which you want to present your data, is also a critical step and should be done before starting to write. One hint is to look for journals that have published similar work to yours, and that aims readers most likely to be interested in your research. This will allow your article to be well read and cited. These journals are also those that you are most likely to read on a regular basis and to cite abundantly. The next step is to decide whether you submit your manuscript to a top-ranking impact factor journal or to a journal of lower prestige. Although it is tempting to test the waters, or to obtain reviewers comments, be realistic about the contribution your work provides and submit to a journal with an appropriate rank.

Do not forget that each rejection delays publication and that the basin of reviewers within your specialty is shallow. Thus repeated submission to different journals could likely result in having your work submitted for review to the same re-viewer.

DECIDING ON THE TYPE OF MANUSCRIPT

There are several types of scientific reports: observational, experimental, methodological, theoretical and review. Observational studies include 1) single-case report, 2) collective case reports on a series of patients having for example common signs and symptoms or being followed-up with similar protocols, 3) cross-sectional, 4) cohort studies, and 5) case-control studies. The latter 3 could be perceived as epidemiological studies as they may help establishing the prevalence of a condition, and identify a defined population with and without a particular condition (disease, injury, surgical complication). Experimental reports deal with research that tests a research hypothesis through an established protocol, and, in the case of health sciences, formulate plausible explanations for changes in biological systems. Methodological reports address for example advances in analytical technology, statistical methods and diagnostic approach. Theoretical reports suggest new working hypotheses and principles that have to be supported or disproved through experimental protocols. The review category can be sub-classified as narrative, systematic and meta-analytic. Narrative reviews are often broad overviews that could be biased as they are based on the personal experience of an expert relying on articles of his or her own choice. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are based on reproducible procedures and on high quality data. Researchers systematically identify and analyze all data collected in articles that test the same working hypothesis, avoiding selection bias, and report the data in a systematic fashion. They are particularly helpful in asking important questions in the field of healthcare and are often the initial step for innovative research. Rules or guidelines in writing such report must be followed if a quality systematic review is to be published.

For clinical research trials and systematic reviews or meta-analyses, use the Consort Statement (Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials) and the PRISMA Statement (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) respectively [ 2 , 3 ]. This assures the editors and the reviewers that essential elements of the trials and of the reviews were tackled. It also speeds the peer review process. There are several other Statements that apply to epidemiological studies [ 4 ], non-randomized clinical trials [ 5 ], diagnostic test development ( 6 ) and genetic association studies ( 7 ). The Consortium of Laboratory Medicine Journal Editors has also published guidelines for reporting industry-sponsored laboratory research ( 8 ).

INITIAL STEPS IN THE PROCESS OF WRITING A SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENT

Literature review is the initial and essential step before starting your study and writing the scientific report based on it. In this process use multiple databases, multiple keyword combinations. It will allow you to track the latest development in your field and thus avoid you to find out that someone else has performed the study before you, and hence decrease the originality of your study. Do not forget that high-ranking research journals publish results of enough importance and interest to merit their publication.

Determining the authorship and the order of authorship, an ethical issue, is the second essential step, and is unfortunately often neglected. This step may avoid later conflicts as, despite existing guidelines, it remains a sensitive issue owing to personal biases and the internal politics of institutions. The International Committee of Medical Editors has adopted the following guidelines for the biomedical sciences ( 9 ).

“Authorship credit should be based only on: 1) Substantial contributions to the conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; 2) Drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and 3) Final approval of the version to be published. Conditions 1, 2 and 3 must be all met. Acquisition of funding, the collections of data, or general supervision of the research group, by themselves, do not justify authorship.” ( 9 , 10 )

The order of authorship should reflect the individual contribution to the research and to the publication, from most to least ( 11 ). The first author usually carries out the lead for the project reported. However the last author is often mistakenly perceived as the senior author. This is perpetuated from the European tradition and is discouraged. As there are divergent conventions among journals, the order of authorship order may or may not reflect the individual contributions; with the exception that the first author should be the one most responsible for the work.

WRITING EFFECTIVELY

Effective writing requires that the text helps the readers 1) understand the content and the context, 2) remember what the salient points are, 3) find the information rapidly and, 4) use or apply the information given. These cardinal qualities should be adorned with the precise usage of the language, clarity of the text, inclu-siveness of the information, and conciseness. Effective writing also means that you have to focus on the potential readers’ needs. Readers in science are informed individuals who are not passive, and who will formulate their own opinion of your writing whether or not the meaning is clear. Therefore you need to know who your audience is. The following 4 questions should help you writing a reader-based text, meaning written to meet the information needs of readers [ 12 ].

What do you assume your readers already know? In other words, which terms and concepts can you use without explanation, and which do you have to define?

What do they want to know? Readers in science will read only if they think they will learn something of value.

What do they need to know? Your text must contain all the information necessary for the reader to understand it, even if you think this information id obvious to them.

What do they think they know that is not so? Correcting misconceptions can be an important function of communication, and persuading readers to change their minds can be a challenging task.

WRITING THE SCIENTIFIC PAPER

Babbs and Tacker ’ s advice to write as much of the paper before performing the research project or experimental protocol may, at first sight, seem unexpected and counterintuitive [ 13 ], but in fact it is exactly what is being done when writing a research grant application. It will allow you to define the authorship alluded to before. The following section will briefly review the structure of the different sections of a manuscript and describe their purpose.

Reading the instructions to authors of the Journal you have decided to submit your manuscript is the first important step. They provide you with the specific requirements such as the way of listing the authors, type of abstract, word, figure or table limits and citation style. The Mulford Library of University of Toledo website contains instructions to authors for over 3000 journals ( http://mulford.meduoiho.edu/instr/ ).

The general organization of an article follows the IMRAD format (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion). These may however vary. For instance, in clinical research or epidemiology studies, the methods section will include details on the subjects included, and there will be a statement of the limitation of the study. Although conclusions may not always be part of the structure, we believe that it should, even in methodological reports.

The tile page provides essential information so that the editor, reviewers, and readers will identify the manuscript and the authors at a glance as well as enabling them to classify the field to which the article pertains.

The title page must contain the following:

• The tile of the article – it is an important part of the manuscript as it is the most often read and will induce the interested readers to pursue further. Therefore the title should be precise, accurate, specific and truthful;
• Each author’s given name (it may be the full name or initials) and family name;
• Each author’s affiliation;
• Some journals ask for highest academic degree;
• A running title that is usually limited to a number of characters. It must relate to the full title;
• Key words that will serve for indexing;
• For clinical studies, the trial’s registration number;
• The name of the corresponding author with full contact information.

The abstract is also an important section of your manuscript. Importantly, the abstract is the part of the article that your peers will see when consulting publication databases such as PubMed. It is the advertisement to your work and will strongly influence the editor deciding whether it will be submitted to reviewers or not. It will also help the readers decide to read the full article. Hence it has to be comprehensible on its own. Writing an abstract is challenging. You have to carefully select the content and, while being concise, assure to deliver the essence of your manuscript.

Without going into details, there are 3 types of abstracts: descriptive, informative and structured. The descriptive abstract is particularly used for theoretical, methodological or review articles. It usually consists of a single paragraph of 150 words or less. The informative abstract, the most common one, contains specific information given in the article and, are organized with an introduction (background, objectives), methods, results and discussion with or without conclusion. They usually are 150 to 250 words in length. The structured abstract is in essence an informative abstract with sections labeled with headings. They may also be longer and are limited to 250 to 300 words. Recent technology also allows for graphical or even video abstracts. The latter are interesting in the context of cell biology as they enable the investigator to illustrate ex vivo experiment results (phagocytosis process for example).

Qualities of abstracts:

• Understood without reading the full paper. Shoul dcontain no abbreviations.lf abbreviations are used, they must be defined. This however removes space for more important information;
• Contains information consistent with the full report. Conclusions in the abstract must match those given in the full report;
• Is attractive and contains information needed to decide whether to read the full report.

Introduction

The introduction has 3 main goals: to establish the need and importance of your research, to indicate how you have filled the knowledge gap in your field and to give your readers a hint of what they will learn when reading your paper. To fulfil these goals, a four-part introduction consisting of a background statement, a problem statement, an activity statement and a forecasting statement, is best suited. Poorly defined background information and problem setting are the 2 most common weaknesses encountered in introductions. They stem from the false perception that peer readers know what the issue is and why the study to solve it is necessary. Although not a strict rule, the introduction in clinical science journals should target only references needed to establish the rationale for the study and the research protocol. This differ from more basic science or cell biology journals, for which a longer and elaborate introduction may be justified because the research at hand consists of several approaches each requiring background and justification.

The 4-part introduction consists of:

• A background statement that provides the context and the approach of the research;
• A problem statement that describes the nature, scope and importance of the problem or the knowledge gap;
• An activity statement, that details the research question, sets the hypothesis and actions undertaken for the investigation;
• A forecasting statement telling the readers whattheywillfìndwhen readingyourarticle [ 14 ].

Methods section

This section may be named “Materials and Methods”, “Experimental section” or “Patients and Methods” depending upon the type of journal. Its purpose to allow your readers to provide enough information on the methods used for your research and to judge on their adequacy. Although clinical and “basic” research protocols differ, the principles involved in describing the methods share similar features. Hence, the breadth of what is being studied and how the study can be performed is common to both. What differ are the specific settings. For example, when a study is conducted on humans, you must provide, up front, assurance that it has received the approval of you Institution Ethics Review Board (IRB) and that participants have provided full and informed consent. Similarly when the study involves animals, you must affirm that you have the agreement from your Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). These are too often forgotten, and Journals (most of them) abiding to the rules of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) will require such statement. Although journals publishing research reports in more fundamental science may not require such assurance, they do however also follow to strict ethics rules related to scientific misconduct or fraud such as data fabrication, data falsification. For clinical research papers, you have to provide information on how the participants were selected, identify the possible sources of bias and confounding factors and how they were diminished.

In terms of the measurements, you have to clearly identify the materials used as well as the suppliers with their location. You should also be unambiguous when describing the analytical method. If the method has already been published, give a brief account and refer to the original publication (not a review in which the method is mentioned without a description). If you have modified it, you have to provide a detailed account of the modifications and you have to validate its accuracy, precision and repeatability. Mention the units in which results are reported and, if necessary, include the conversion factors [mass units versus “système international” (S.I.)]. In clinical research, surrogate end-points are often used as biomarkers. Under those circumstances, you must show their validity or refer to a study that has already shown that are valid.

In cases of clinical trials, the Methods section should include the study design, the patient selection mode, interventions, type of outcomes.

Statistics are important in assuring the quality of the research project. Hence, you should consult a biostatistician at the time of devising the research protocol and not after having performed the experiments or the clinical trial.

The components of the section on statistics should include:

• The way the data will be reported (mean, median, centiles for continuous data);
• Details on participant assignments to the different groups (random allocation, consecutive entry);
• Statistical comparison tools (parametric or non parametric statistics, paired or unpaired t-tests for normally distributed data and so on);
• The statistical power calculation when determining the sample size to obtain valid and significant comparisons together with the a level;
• The statistical software package used in the analysis.

Results section

The main purpose of the results section is to report the data that were collected and their relationship. It should also provide information on the modifications that have taken place because of unforeseen events leading to a modification of the initial protocol (loss of participants, reagent substitution, loss of data).

• Report results as tables and figures whenever possible, avoid duplication in the text. The text should summarize the findings;
• Report the data with the appropriate descriptive statistics;
• Report any unanticipated events that could affect the results;
• Report a complete account of observations and explanations for missing data (patient lost).

The discussion should set your research in context, reinforce its importance and show how your results have contributed to the further understanding of the problem posed. This should appear in the concluding remarks. The following organization could be helpful.

• Briefly summarize the main results of your study in one or two paragraphs, and how they support your working hypothesis;
• Provide an interpretation of your results and show how they logically fit in an overall scheme (biological or clinical);
• Describe how your results compare with those of other investigators, explain the differences observed;
• Discuss how your results may lead to a new hypothesis and further experimentation, or how they could enhance the diagnostic procedures.
• Provide the limitations of your study and steps taken to reduce them. This could be placed in the concluding remarks.

Acknowledgements

The acknowledgements are important as they identify and thank the contributors to the study, who do not meet the criteria as co-authors. They also include the recognition of the granting agency. In this case the grant award number and source is usually included.

Declaration of competing interests

Competing interests arise when the author has more than one role that may lead to a situation where there is a conflict of interest. This is observed when the investigator has a simultaneous industrial consulting and academic position. In that case the results may not be agreeable to the industrial sponsor, who may impose a veto on publication or strongly suggest modifications to the conclusions. The investigator must clear this issue before starting the contracted research. In addition, the investigator may own shares or stock in the company whose product forms the basis of the study. Such conflicts of interest must be declared so that they are apparent to the readers.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Thomas A Lang, for his advice in the preparation of this manuscript.

When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.

• PLOS Biology
• PLOS Climate
• PLOS Complex Systems
• PLOS Computational Biology
• PLOS Digital Health
• PLOS Genetics
• PLOS Global Public Health
• PLOS Medicine
• PLOS Mental Health
• PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
• PLOS Pathogens
• PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
• PLOS Collections

Welcome to the PLOS Writing Center

Your source for scientific writing & publishing essentials.

A collection of free, practical guides and hands-on resources for authors looking to improve their scientific publishing skillset.

ARTICLE-WRITING ESSENTIALS

Your title is the first thing anyone who reads your article is going to see, and for many it will be where they stop reading. Learn how to write a title that helps readers find your article, draws your audience in and sets the stage for your research!

The abstract is your chance to let your readers know what they can expect from your article. Learn how to write a clear, and concise abstract that will keep your audience reading.

A clear methods section impacts editorial evaluation and readers’ understanding, and is also the backbone of transparency and replicability. Learn what to include in your methods section, and how much detail is appropriate.

In many fields, a statistical analysis forms the heart of both the methods and results sections of a manuscript. Learn how to report statistical analyses, and what other context is important for publication success and future reproducibility.

The discussion section contains the results and outcomes of a study. An effective discussion informs readers what can be learned from your experiment and provides context for the results.

Ensuring your manuscript is well-written makes it easier for editors, reviewers and readers to understand your work. Avoiding language errors can help accelerate review and minimize delays in the publication of your research.

The PLOS Writing Toolbox

Delivered to your inbox every two weeks, the Writing Toolbox features practical advice and tools you can use to prepare a research manuscript for submission success and build your scientific writing skillset. 

Discover how to navigate the peer review and publishing process, beyond writing your article.

The path to publication can be unsettling when you’re unsure what’s happening with your paper. Learn about staple journal workflows to see the detailed steps required for ensuring a rigorous and ethical publication.

Reputable journals screen for ethics at submission—and inability to pass ethics checks is one of the most common reasons for rejection. Unfortunately, once a study has begun, it’s often too late to secure the requisite ethical reviews and clearances. Learn how to prepare for publication success by ensuring your study meets all ethical requirements before work begins.

From preregistration, to preprints, to publication—learn how and when to share your study.

How you store your data matters. Even after you publish your article, your data needs to be accessible and useable for the long term so that other researchers can continue building on your work. Good data management practices make your data discoverable and easy to use, promote a strong foundation for reproducibility and increase your likelihood of citations.

You’ve just spent months completing your study, writing up the results and submitting to your top-choice journal. Now the feedback is in and it’s time to revise. Set out a clear plan for your response to keep yourself on-track and ensure edits don’t fall through the cracks.

There’s a lot to consider when deciding where to submit your work. Learn how to choose a journal that will help your study reach its audience, while reflecting your values as a researcher.

Are you actively preparing a submission for a PLOS journal? Select the relevant journal below for more detailed guidelines. 

How to Write an Article  

Share the lessons of the Writing Center in a live, interactive training.

Access tried-and-tested training modules, complete with slides and talking points, workshop activities, and more.

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/.

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  

25k Accesses

7 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

The Point Is…to Publish?

How to Do a Review of the Literature?

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

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Research Paper

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

The Research Paper

There will come a time in most students' careers when they are assigned a research paper. Such an assignment often creates a great deal of unneeded anxiety in the student, which may result in procrastination and a feeling of confusion and inadequacy. This anxiety frequently stems from the fact that many students are unfamiliar and inexperienced with this genre of writing. Never fear—inexperience and unfamiliarity are situations you can change through practice! Writing a research paper is an essential aspect of academics and should not be avoided on account of one's anxiety. In fact, the process of writing a research paper can be one of the more rewarding experiences one may encounter in academics. What is more, many students will continue to do research throughout their careers, which is one of the reasons this topic is so important.

Becoming an experienced researcher and writer in any field or discipline takes a great deal of practice. There are few individuals for whom this process comes naturally. Remember, even the most seasoned academic veterans have had to learn how to write a research paper at some point in their career. Therefore, with diligence, organization, practice, a willingness to learn (and to make mistakes!), and, perhaps most important of all, patience, students will find that they can achieve great things through their research and writing.

The pages in this section cover the following topic areas related to the process of writing a research paper:

• Genre - This section will provide an overview for understanding the difference between an analytical and argumentative research paper.
• Choosing a Topic - This section will guide the student through the process of choosing topics, whether the topic be one that is assigned or one that the student chooses themselves.
• Identifying an Audience - This section will help the student understand the often times confusing topic of audience by offering some basic guidelines for the process.
• Where Do I Begin - This section concludes the handout by offering several links to resources at Purdue, and also provides an overview of the final stages of writing a research paper.

How To Write Better Sentences For A Research Paper?

• Smodin Editorial Team
• Updated: May 17, 2024

When you’re faced with writing a research paper, coming up with clear, impactful sentences can be a headache. This is especially true when you aim to convey complex ideas effectively.

If you struggle with sentence structure or cannot express your thoughts clearly, this guide will help you.

From basic grammar to using AI tools, we’ll look at how to craft sentences that resonate with readers and bolster your arguments.

Understand the Basics of Sentence Structure

Understanding the basics of sentence structure is important in academic writing. Every sentence in your research paper is a building block, contributing to the clarity and persuasiveness of your argument. A good sentence begins with a clear focus: every word should help convey your main idea directly and effectively.

First, recognize the importance of a strong subject and verb combination. The subject of your sentence performs the action, which is described by the verb. Ensuring these elements are clear and concise prevents ambiguity and keeps the reader on their toes. For example: “The experiment demonstrates…” is more direct than saying: “It is demonstrated by the experiment that…”

Think about the structure of your sentences. A well-crafted sentence follows a logical pattern: subject, verb, object. Following this structure can make your writing easier while enhancing the article’s readability.

Finally, remember that every sentence you write should support the main point of your paragraph. Think of each sentence as a mini-argument that adds to your thesis, logically linking your ideas. Mastering these basics is the first step in ensuring that every sentence you write contributes substance.

Techniques for Enhancing Sentences

No, we weren’t about to leave you hanging. Here are some practical techniques that you can use to make each sentence add value to your research paper.

Achieving clarity is extremely important, especially in scientific writing and within your thesis statement. The argument must be clear to the reader immediately. One common issue is the overuse of complex sentences that muddy your points. Counter this by focusing on using active voice rather than passive voice. Passive voice can simply obscure “who” is performing the action.

Here’s an example: “The researcher conducted the experiment” (active) is clearer than: “The experiment was conducted by the researcher” (passive).

Also, when explaining processes or results that occurred in your study, past tense should be used consistently to maintain clarity. Ensure every verb in your sentence drives home a clear idea, supporting the main argument. So, when it comes to clarity, be sure to choose the right verb tense.

Sentence structure is an important part of keeping your academic articles engaging. The general rule is to mix different types of sentences to keep the reader’s interest and highlight key points.

Start by varying the length of your sentences: pair a shorter, impactful sentence with a longer, more descriptive one. This can prevent your writing from becoming boring. After a punchy statement, for example, extend the next sentence with additional details.

It’s also important to experiment with different starts to sentences . Using an adverb, an adjective, or a phrase to lead your thoughts can be helpful. Discussing your topics with various verbs also adds rhythm and dynamics to your text. Do this carefully, though: getting too creative with your diction can make a sentence more complex than it needs to be.

Trust us, it’s worth the effort to rephrase sentences to avoid repetitive structures and ensure your ideas are expressed as clearly and vividly as possible. This is key to crafting a compelling narrative for your article.

Transitions

Powerful transitions are the glue that holds your essay together, guiding the reader smoothly from one idea to the next. The first sentence of each paragraph should serve as a bridge from the previous paragraph. The most important point of a new section should be introduced clearly and succinctly.

This helps the reader follow your argument without struggling through abrupt changes and disconnected points. For example, if one paragraph discusses a specific aspect of your research, the next could link that aspect to another, deepening the reader’s understanding of the topic.

Within a paragraph, each sentence should logically flow to the next , using transition words and phrases to signal the connection between ideas. Using transitions effectively clarifies the relationship between paragraphs and sentences. It also reinforces the overall structure of your paper, ensuring each point contributes meaningfully to your thesis.

Write Better Sentences With Smodin

Using Smodin in your academic writing can transform how you structure sentences in your research papers. Smodin is equipped with tools to refine your writing and ensure it’s crisp, engaging, and informative. With it, you can expect meticulous attention to detail. This allows you to present more details clearly in your discussions.

The subject of your paper is handled with precision, backed by artificial intelligence (AI) that enriches your argument with well-structured ideas and only the relevant evidence.

Smodin’s AI tools help maintain a sharp focus on the topic at hand and select the best words to articulate your ideas. This can be particularly useful when you must express many research findings within a small word limit. Plus, Smodin’s ability to generate references accurately and integrate them seamlessly enhances credibility and saves you tons of time.

We should also mention that Smodin’s suite of AI writing tools goes way beyond just restructuring sentences. You can also do plagiarism checks and receive comprehensive research assistance, supporting your writing at every step.

Final Thoughts

To become a “good writer,” you must master sentence structure and clarity. It won’t be easy at first, but you can do it!

Present your subject in a way that resonates with your reader, ensuring that each sentence builds on the last to form a coherent argument. Eventually, with practice and attention to detail, you’ll improve.

Remember, you can speed this up by leveraging the power of artificial intelligence. Smodin lets you start for free, so what are you waiting for?

This page has been archived and is no longer updated

Scientific Papers

Scientific papers are for sharing your own original research work with other scientists or for reviewing the research conducted by others. As such, they are critical to the evolution of modern science, in which the work of one scientist builds upon that of others. To reach their goal, papers must aim to inform, not impress. They must be highly readable — that is, clear, accurate, and concise. They are more likely to be cited by other scientists if they are helpful rather than cryptic or self-centered.

Scientific papers typically have two audiences: first, the referees, who help the journal editor decide whether a paper is suitable for publication; and second, the journal readers themselves, who may be more or less knowledgeable about the topic addressed in the paper. To be accepted by referees and cited by readers, papers must do more than simply present a chronological account of the research work. Rather, they must convince their audience that the research presented is important, valid, and relevant to other scientists in the same field. To this end, they must emphasize both the motivation for the work and the outcome of it, and they must include just enough evidence to establish the validity of this outcome.

Papers that report experimental work are often structured chronologically in five sections: first, Introduction ; then Materials and Methods , Results , and Discussion (together, these three sections make up the paper's body); and finally, Conclusion .

• The Introduction section clarifies the motivation for the work presented and prepares readers for the structure of the paper.
• The Materials and Methods section provides sufficient detail for other scientists to reproduce the experiments presented in the paper. In some journals, this information is placed in an appendix, because it is not what most readers want to know first.
• The Results and Discussion sections present and discuss the research results, respectively. They are often usefully combined into one section, however, because readers can seldom make sense of results alone without accompanying interpretation — they need to be told what the results mean.
• The Conclusion section presents the outcome of the work by interpreting the findings at a higher level of abstraction than the Discussion and by relating these findings to the motivation stated in the Introduction .

(Papers reporting something other than experiments, such as a new method or technology, typically have different sections in their body, but they include the same Introduction and Conclusion sections as described above.)

Although the above structure reflects the progression of most research projects, effective papers typically break the chronology in at least three ways to present their content in the order in which the audience will most likely want to read it. First and foremost, they summarize the motivation for, and the outcome of, the work in an abstract, located before the Introduction . In a sense, they reveal the beginning and end of the story — briefly — before providing the full story. Second, they move the more detailed, less important parts of the body to the end of the paper in one or more appendices so that these parts do not stand in the readers' way. Finally, they structure the content in the body in theorem-proof fashion, stating first what readers must remember (for example, as the first sentence of a paragraph) and then presenting evidence to support this statement.

The introduction

• First, provide some context to orient those readers who are less familiar with your topic and to establish the importance of your work.
• Second, state the need for your work, as an opposition between what the scientific community currently has and what it wants.
• Third, indicate what you have done in an effort to address the need (this is the task).
• Finally, preview the remainder of the paper to mentally prepare readers for its structure, in the object of the document.

Context and need

At the beginning of the Introduction section, the context and need work together as a funnel: They start broad and progressively narrow down to the issue addressed in the paper. To spark interest among your audience — referees and journal readers alike — provide a compelling motivation for the work presented in your paper: The fact that a phenomenon has never been studied before is not, in and of itself, a reason to study that phenomenon.

Write the context in a way that appeals to a broad range of readers and leads into the need. Do not include context for the sake of including context: Rather, provide only what will help readers better understand the need and, especially, its importance. Consider anchoring the context in time, using phrases such as recently , in the past 10 years , or since the early 1990s . You may also want to anchor your context in space (either geographically or within a given research field).

Convey the need for the work as an opposition between actual and desired situations. Start by stating the actual situation (what we have) as a direct continuation of the context. If you feel you must explain recent achievements in much detail — say, in more than one or two paragraphs — consider moving the details to a section titled State of the art (or something similar) after the Introduction , but do provide a brief idea of the actual situation in the Introduction . Next, state the desired situation (what we want). Emphasize the contrast between the actual and desired situations with such words as but , however, or unfortunately .

One elegant way to express the desired part of the need is to combine it with the task in a single sentence. This sentence expresses first the objective, then the action undertaken to reach this objective, thus creating a strong and elegant connection between need and task. Here are three examples of such a combination:

To confirm this assumption , we studied the effects of a range of inhibitors of connexin channels . . . on . . .

To assess whether such multiple-coil sensors perform better than single-signal ones , we tested two of them — the DuoPXK and the GEMM3 — in a field where . . . To form a better view of the global distribution and infectiousness of this pathogen , we examined 1645 postmetamorphic and adult amphibians collected from 27 countries between 1984 and 2006 for the presence of . . .

Task and object

An Introduction is usually clearer and more logical when it separates what the authors have done (the task) from what the paper itself attempts or covers (the object of the document). In other words, the task clarifies your contribution as a scientist, whereas the object of the document prepares readers for the structure of the paper, thus allowing focused or selective reading.

For the task,

• use whoever did the work (normally, you and your colleagues) as the subject of the sentence: we or perhaps the authors;
• use a verb expressing a research action: measured , calculated , etc.;
• set that verb in the past tense.

The three examples below are well-formed tasks.

To confirm this assumption, we studied the effects of a range of inhibitors of connexin channels, such as the connexin mimetic peptides Gap26 and Gap27 and anti-peptide antibodies, on calcium signaling in cardiac cells and HeLa cells expressing connexins.

During controlled experiments, we investigated the influence of the HMP boundary conditions on liver flows.

To tackle this problem, we developed a new software verification technique called oblivious hashing, which calculates the hash values based on the actual execution of the program.

The list below provides examples of verbs that express research actions:

For the object of the document,

• use the document itself as the subject of the sentence: this paper , this letter , etc.;
• use a verb expressing a communication action: presents , summarizes , etc.;
• set the verb in the present tense.

The three examples below are suitable objects of the document for the three tasks shown above, respectively.

This paper clarifies the role of CxHc on calcium oscillations in neonatal cardiac myocytes and calcium transients induced by ATP in HL-cells originated from cardiac atrium and in HeLa cells expressing connexin 43 or 26. This paper presents the flow effects induced by increasing the hepatic-artery pressure and by obstructing the vena cava inferior. This paper discusses the theory behind oblivious hashing and shows how this approach can be applied for local software tamper resistance and remote code authentication.

The list below provides examples of verbs that express communication actions:

Even the most logical structure is of little use if readers do not see and understand it as they progress through a paper. Thus, as you organize the body of your paper into sections and perhaps subsections, remember to prepare your readers for the structure ahead at all levels. You already do so for the overall structure of the body (the sections) in the object of the document at the end of the Introduction . You can similarly prepare your readers for an upcoming division into subsections by introducing a global paragraph between the heading of a section and the heading of its first subsection. This paragraph can contain any information relating to the section as a whole rather than particular subsections, but it should at least announce the subsections, whether explicitly or implicitly. An explicit preview would be phrased much like the object of the document: "This section first . . . , then . . . , and finally . . . "

Although papers can be organized into sections in many ways, those reporting experimental work typically include Materials and Methods , Results , and Discussion in their body. In any case, the paragraphs in these sections should begin with a topic sentence to prepare readers for their contents, allow selective reading, and — ideally — get a message across.

Materials and methods

Results and discussion.

When reporting and discussing your results, do not force your readers to go through everything you went through in chronological order. Instead, state the message of each paragraph upfront: Convey in the first sentence what you want readers to remember from the paragraph as a whole. Focus on what happened, not on the fact that you observed it. Then develop your message in the remainder of the paragraph, including only that information you think you need to convince your audience.

The conclusion

At the end of your Conclusion , consider including perspectives — that is, an idea of what could or should still be done in relation to the issue addressed in the paper. If you include perspectives, clarify whether you are referring to firm plans for yourself and your colleagues ("In the coming months, we will . . . ") or to an invitation to readers ("One remaining question is . . . ").

If your paper includes a well-structured Introduction and an effective abstract, you need not repeat any of the Introduction in the Conclusion . In particular, do not restate what you have done or what the paper does. Instead, focus on what you have found and, especially, on what your findings mean. Do not be afraid to write a short Conclusion section: If you can conclude in just a few sentences given the rich discussion in the body of the paper, then do so. (In other words, resist the temptation to repeat material from the Introduction just to make the Conclusio n longer under the false belief that a longer Conclusion will seem more impressive.)

The abstract

Typically, readers are primarily interested in the information presented in a paper's Introduction and Conclusion sections. Primarily, they want to know the motivation for the work presented and the outcome of this work. Then (and only then) the most specialized among them might want to know the details of the work. Thus, an effective abstract focuses on motivation and outcome; in doing so, it parallels the paper's Introduction and Conclusion .

Accordingly, you can think of an abstract as having two distinct parts — motivation and outcome — even if it is typeset as a single paragraph. For the first part, follow the same structure as the Introduction section of the paper: State the context, the need, the task, and the object of the document. For the second part, mention your findings (the what ) and, especially, your conclusion (the so what — that is, the interpretation of your findings); if appropriate, end with perspectives, as in the Conclusion section of your paper.

Although the structure of the abstract parallels the Introduction and Conclusion sections, it differs from these sections in the audience it addresses. The abstract is read by many different readers, from the most specialized to the least specialized among the target audience. In a sense, it should be the least specialized part of the paper. Any scientist reading it should be able to understand why the work was carried out and why it is important (context and need), what the authors did (task) and what the paper reports about this work (object of the document), what the authors found (findings), what these findings mean (the conclusion), and possibly what the next steps are (perspectives). In contrast, the full paper is typically read by specialists only; its Introduction and Conclusion are more detailed (that is, longer and more specialized) than the abstract.

An effective abstract stands on its own — it can be understood fully even when made available without the full paper. To this end, avoid referring to figures or the bibliography in the abstract. Also, introduce any acronyms the first time you use them in the abstract (if needed), and do so again in the full paper (see Mechanics: Using abbreviations ).

This page appears in the following eBook

Topic rooms within Scientific Communication

Within this Subject (22)

• Communicating as a Scientist (3)
• Papers (4)
• Correspondence (5)
• Presentations (4)
• Conferences (3)
• Classrooms (3)

Other Topic Rooms

• Gene Inheritance and Transmission
• Gene Expression and Regulation
• Nucleic Acid Structure and Function
• Chromosomes and Cytogenetics
• Evolutionary Genetics
• Population and Quantitative Genetics
• Genes and Disease
• Genetics and Society
• Cell Origins and Metabolism
• Proteins and Gene Expression
• Subcellular Compartments
• Cell Communication
• Cell Cycle and Cell Division

© 2014 Nature Education

• Press Room |
• Terms of Use |
• Privacy Notice |

Visual Browse