Structure, format, content, and style of a scientific paper
Why scientific format
| Research | Section of Paper |
|---|---|
| What did I do in a nutshell? | Abstract |
| What is the problem? | Introduction |
| How did I solve the problem? | Materials and methods |
| What did I find out? | Results |
| What does it mean? | Discussion |
| Who helped me out? | Acknowledgments |
| Whose work did I refer to? | Literature cited |
| Extra Information | Appendices (optional) |
The scientific format may seem confusing for the beginning science writer due to its rigid structure which is so different from writing in the
humanities. One reason for using this format is that it is a means of efficiently communicating scientific findings to the broad community of scientists in a uniform manner. Another reason, perhaps more import ant than the first, is that this format allows the paper to be read at several different levels. For example, many people skim Titles to find out what information is available on a subject. Others may read only Titles, Abstracts and Conclusions. Those wanting to go deeper may look at the Tables and Figures in the Results, and so on. The take home point here is that the scientific format helps to insure that at whatever level a person reads your paper (beyond title skimming), they will likely get the key results and conclusions.
Examples
- Physical Review Letters example
- Physical Review B example
What to put into different sections
Title
informative, catchy, concise semicolons? why not, if it helps, though some consider them bad taste
Abstract
- concise, direct, informative
- Passive or active voice?
I prefer passive, though in longer abstracts an occasional active assertion may be enlivening. Abstracts are now more important than ever due to the increasinglarge number of articles. One cannot read all the papers in each issue of PRL,not even in ones own field. Abstracts should state major findings, even some specifics (numbers, formulas showing basic trends).
