I keep six honest serving-men
(They taught me all I knew);
Their names are What and Why and When
And How and Where and Who.
This article provides a gist of the methods described in the second chapter of the book "How to write a good scientific paper" by Chris A. Mack.
1. Check for the four criteria before submitting to a scientific journal:
(a) The content of the paper must match the scope of the journal.
(b) The quality of the paper (method and execution of the research, as well as the writing) must be sufficiently high. Quality is implied and should be demonstrated, not explicitly claimed.
(c) It must present novel results (with the exception of review papers and the like).
(d) The results must be significant enough to be worth reading (and thus worth publishing).
2. With some variations, most papers use an “IMRaDC” format:
Introduction
Method (experiment, theory, design, model)
Results and Discussion
Conclusions
The two main advantages of following the IMRaDC structure: it makes it easier for the writer to organize the content of the paper, and it makes it easier for the reader to find the information they seek.
3. The Introduction section should answer two questions: “What?” and “So what?”
What is the paper about, and why should the reader care? An introduction should inform the reader as to what the paper is about and motivate the reader to continue reading. Introduction should answer scope, novelty, and significance of the paper.
4. Do not provide unnecessary background information (telling the reader what they already know or what they do not need to know), exaggerate the importance of the work, or fail to clarify what research questions this paper is trying to answer.
5. Method section (Materials and Method section or Experimental methods) should answer how the results were generated.
Should be sufficiently detailed so that an independent researcher working in the same field could reproduce the results sufficiently to allow validation of the conclusions. Do not include results in the Method section.
6. Do not provide explicit step-by-step instructions (Until and unless you are reporting a method that is novel) rather references to prior publications that provide such details. For standard or well established methods, naming the method may be sufficient. A good method section should not only describe what was done and how it was done, but it should justify the experimental design as well.
7. Results and Discussion. Clearly designate those results that are new (never before published), while properly cite results that have been previously published. Explain the results and show how they help to answer the research questions posed in the introduction.
8. Discuss any problems or shortcomings encountered during the course of the work, especially if they might influence how results are interpreted.
9. Pitfalls of writing the results and discussion section:
(a) lack of organization,
(b) presenting results that are never discussed,
(c) presenting discussion that does not relate to any of the results,
(d) presenting results and discussion in chronological order rather than logical order,
(e) ignoring results that do not support the conclusions, or
(f) drawing conclusions from results without sound logical arguments to back them up.
10. The conclusions section provides a brief summary of the results and discussion, but it should be more than a summary. Show how each research question posed in the introduction has been addressed. Emphasize the implications of the findings and explain the significance of the work.
11. Conclusion should be reader-focused. Avoid a list of all the things that “I” or “we” have accomplished.
12. The conclusion should concisely provide the key message(s) the author wishes to convey. Do not repeat the arguments made in the results and discussion, only the final and most general conclusions.
13. Conclusion may also provide a future perspective on the work. This could be recommendations to the audience or a roadmap for future work. A small amount of speculation can be appropriate here, so long as it is relevant and clearly labeled as speculative.
14. Pitfalls of conclusion.
(a) Do not repeat the abstract, background information from the introduction,
(b) Do not introduce new evidence or new arguments not found in the results and discussion,
(c) Do not repeat the arguments made in the results and discussion,
(d) Do not fail to address all of the research questions set out in the introduction.
15. Organize your paper according to the IMRaDC model and follow the general advice
listed earlier. Of course, if the nature of your work demands a different structure, feel free to change and invent.
References
1. How to Write a Good Scientific Paper, Chris A. Mack, SPIE digital library.
Comments