Have you been searching for the perfect ways to write a scientific paper? If yes, then you have come to the right place. In this article, you will learn how to write a scientific paper.
Scientific papers based on experimentation generally have five predominant sections: abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. This structure is a widely accepted approach to writing a research paper and has specific areas that parallel the scientific method. To be accepted by the referees and rewarded by readers, papers must do more than simply present a chronological account of the research question work. Instead, they must convince their audience that the research presented is important, valid, and relevant to other scientists in the same field.
Scientific writing generally follows a specific format with key sections: an introduction to a particular topic, a hypothesis to be tested, a description of methods, key results, and finally, a discussion that ties the results. Keep reading this article to know how to write a scientific paper.
What is a scientific paper?
A scientific paper is a written and published report describing actual search results. It must be the first publication of the initial search results. Simply, it is an organized description of hypotheses, data, and conclusions intended to instruct the reader.
If you have written an exciting but unpublished scientific paper, it is equivalent to non-existent. Your objective in research is to formulate and test hypotheses, draw conclusions from these tests, and teach these conclusions to others.
Scientific papers are for conveying your original research work with other scientists or for reviewing the research accomplished by others. As such, scientific papers are crucial to the evolution of modern science. In which the work of one scientist creates upon that of others. It is a manuscript representing an original work of scientific research. It can be an addition to the proceeding study in a field, can be groundbreaking, or a comparative study between different approaches. A scientific paper usually draws the research performed by an individual or a group of people.
These papers showcase proper analysis in fields like theoretical physics, mathematics, etc., and are routinely published in scientific journals. However, most publications have rules about a paper’s format: some divide papers into these or some sections, others do not, and the order may differ in different publications. So be prepared to revise your paper into a publication format when you are ready to submit.
An improperly titled paper may never reach the audience for which it was planned. If the study is of a particular species or a chemical, name it in the title. If the study has been limited to a specific region or system, and the inferences it contains are similarly limited, then name the region or system in the title.
How to write a scientific paper?
To write a scientific paper, follow the steps mentioned below:
Write a creative statement
The key to writing a vision statement is to articulate it in one sentence because it’s a sentence you’ll come back to a few times throughout the paper. You’re not ready to write a paper if you can’t speak of the fundamental discovery or accomplishment in a single sentence. Every journal has a different style and order of sections. Making this decision before you write a single word will save you much time later. When you have selected a journal, check the website for requirements with regards to formatting, length limits, and figures.
Avoid starting at the beginning
Logically, starting a paper with the abstract, or at least the introduction, makes sense. Don’t. You often tell a completely different story than the one you thought you would suggest. If you start with the introduction, you will likely have to rewrite both sections by the time everything else is written.
Storyboard the figures
Figures are the best place to begin because they create the backbone of your paper. Unlike you, the reader hasn’t been living this research for a year or more than that. So, the first figure should encourage them to want to learn about your discovery. Classic organizational approach writers use “storyboarding,” where all figures are laid on boards. This can be done using software like PowerPoint, Keynote, or Prezi. One approach is to put the vision statement on the first slide and all your results on subsequent slides.
To begin, include all data without concern for order or importance. Subsequent passes can consider the consolidation of data sets (e.g., forming panel figures) and relative importance (e.g., main text vs. supplement). The figures should be arranged logically to support your hypothesis statement. Prominently, this order may or may not be the order in which you took the data. If you’re missing data, it should become evident at this point.
Write the methods section
Of all the sections, the methods section is simultaneously the easiest and the most crucial section to write accurately. Any results in your paper should be replicable based on the methods section, so if you’ve created an entirely new experimental method, write it out in excruciating detail, including setup, controls, manufacturers, protocols, and part numbers, if appropriate. If you’re building on a previous study, there’s no need to repeat all those details; that’s what references are for.
One typical blunder when writing a methods section is the inclusion of results. The methods section is just a record of what you did. The methods section is one example of where knowing the journal is crucial. Some journals integrate the methods section between the introduction and the results; others place the methods section at the end of the article. Relying on the location of the methods section, the contents of the results and discussion section may vary a little.
Write the conclusion and discussion section
In a few journals, conclusions and discussions are separate sections. Regardless, the trend is to merge these two sections. This section should include the bulk of your paper-by storyboarding your figures; you already have an outline. An excellent place to start is to write a few paragraphs about each figure, explaining:
- The result that should be void of interpretation.
- The relevance of the result to your hypothesis statement (interpretation is starting to appear)
- The relevance to the field (this is entirely your opinion)
You should be quantitative and specific whenever possible, especially when compared to prior work. Additionally, any experimental errors should be calculated, and error bars should be included in experimental results along with replicate analysis. You can use this section to help readers understand how your research fits in the context of other ongoing work and explain how your study counts on the body of knowledge. Consequently, this section should smoothly transition into the conclusion.
Write the conclusion
In conclusion, summarize everything you have already. Emphasize the most critical findings from your study and restate why they matter. State what you learned and end with the most important thing you want the reader to take away from the paper-again and your vision statement. From the conclusion, a reader should be able to understand the core of your whole study, including your results and their importance.
Write the introduction
The introduction sets the stage for your article. If it were a fictional story, the introduction would be the exposition, where the characters, setting, period, and primary conflict are introduced. Scientific papers follow a similar formula. The introduction provides a view of your research from 30,000 feet: it describes the problem in the context of a larger field; it checks what other research groups have done to move forward on the issue (the literature review).
In addition, it lays out your hypothesis, which may include your expectations about what the study will contribute to the body of knowledge. The majority of your references will be seen in the introduction.
Make references
The first thing that any new writer should do is pick an excellent electronic reference manager. Many free ones are available, but research groups often have a favorite one. Editing will be more effortless if everyone is using the same manager. References perform multiple roles in a manuscript:
- To allow a reader to get more precise information on a topic that has been previously published. For example: “The device was manufactured using a standard method.” You must reference that method. One common mistake is referencing a paper that doesn’t contain the protocol, resulting in readers being sent down a virtual rabbit hole searching for the protocol.
- To support statements that are not common knowledge or may be controversial. For example, “Previous results have shown that chocolate is better than vanilla.” You need a reference here. Several papers could be used frequently, and it is up to you to choose.
- To identify others working in the field, such as those who came before you and laid the groundwork for your work as well as more recent discoveries. The choice of these papers is where you need to be extremely conscientious. Don’t get into the habit of citing the same couple of papers from the same group. New papers are published every day-literally. You must ensure that your concerns include foundational papers and recent works.
Write the abstract
Keep in mind that the abstract is the elevator pitch for your article. Most abstracts are 150–300 words, translating to approximately 10–20 sentences. Like any good pitch, it should describe the importance of the field, the challenge that your research addresses, how it solves the challenge, and its potential future impact. It should include any key quantitative metrics. It is important to remember that abstracts are contained in search engine results.
Write the title
The title should grab the essence of the paper. If someone was interested in your topic, think about the phrase or keywords they would type into a search engine. Ensure that those words are included in your title.
Scientific paper example
[Page 1 – text aligned in the center of the page]
“Behavioral study of obedience”
By [author], [university]
1961
[Page 2 – text begins at the top, left]
Abstract
There are some facts about the role of compliance when committing acts against one’s personal conscience (1961). Most theories suggest that only very disturbed people are capable of administering pain to extraordinary citizens if they are ordered to do so. An experiment that tested people’s obedience to authority showed the results that most obey all orders given by the authority figure, despite their unwillingness. The conclusion is that, contrary to typical belief, personal ethics mean little when pitted against authority.
[Page 3-X – text starts in the top left corner, with no extra spacing to align text]
Introduction
Current theories concentrate on personal characteristics to justify wrong-doing and how someone can intentionally harm others. In a survey, professionals such as doctors, psychologists, and laypeople predicted that a small proportion of a population (1-3%) would damage others if ordered to do so. In the recent war trial with Matthew Eichmann, he claims only to have been “following orders.” The author wanted to test this claim. Can people harm others because they are just obeying orders? Can people be ordered to act against their moral beliefs?
The experiment will test whether a person can keep allocating painful electric shocks to another person just because they are ordered to do so. The explanation is that very few will keep giving shocks, and most participants will disobey the order to do so.
Methods
Participants
There were 30 male participants. They were recruited by advertising in a newspaper and were paid $4.50.
Instruments
A “shock generator” was used to deceive the participants into thinking another person in another room gave them an electric shock. The shock generator contained switches labeled with different voltages, starting at 30 volts and rising in 15-volt increments up to 450 volts. The controls were also labeled with terms that reminded the participant of how dangerous the shocks were.
Procedures
The participant met with another “participant” in the waiting room before the experiment. The other “participant” was an actor. Each participant got the role of a “teacher” who would then deliver a shock to the actor (learner) every time an incorrect answer to a question was produced. The participant felt that he was delivering real shocks to the learner. The learner would pretend to be shocked. As the experiment progressed, the teacher would listen to the learner plead to be released and complain about a heart condition.
Once the 300-volt level had been reached, the learner knocked on the wall and demanded to be released. Above this point, the learner became totally silent and denied answering more questions. The experimenter then instructed the participant to treat this silence as an incorrect response and supplied a different sock. They were taught to continue when asking the experimenter if they could stop.
Results
Out of the 40 participants in the study, 26 delivered the maximum shocks. Fourteen persons did not obey the experimenter and quit before reaching the highest levels. All 40 participants resumed giving shocks up to 300 volts.
Conclusion
Most participants became very hyper, stressed, and angry at the experimenter. Many continued to pursue orders throughout, even though they were clearly uncomfortable. The study indicates that people are able to harm others intentionally if ordered to do so. It proves that this dynamic is far more critical than previously believed and that personal ethics are less predictive of such behavior.
Scientific paper format
The four main components of a scientific paper can be represented by the acronym IMRaD. That means introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Other sections, along with a suggested length, are listed below.
Page 1:
Title, author, work/school
Page 2:
Abstract: a summary of the article
Page 3:
Introduction
Current theories about the topic. What is the hypothesis for the paper?
Methods
What methods were used?
Results
What were the results obtained?
Discussion and Conclusion
What is your thought about the results compared to other appropriate theories?
References
Through the text, there are references, and sources of knowledge, which you have used. Rewarding those will give you more credibility because good research is thought to be based on other knowledge and empirical proof.
How to write a scientific paper introduction?
The primary purpose of the introduction is to tell the reader what your topic is and why it’s exciting or meaningful. This is accomplished with a powerful opening hook. The hook is a unique opening sentence that clearly describes the relevance of your topic. Think of an interesting fact or statistic, a strong statement, a question, or a belief anecdote that will get the reader wondering about your topic.
For example, the following could be a compelling hook for an argumentative paper about the environmental impact of cattle farming:
Are cows responsible for climate change?
A more practical paper investigating the relationship of Instagram use with body image issues in adolescent girls might use the following hook:
The rise of social media has been escorted by a sharp increase in the prevalence of body image issues among women and girls. Don’t feel your hook must be deeply impressive or creative. Clarity and relevance are still more critical than catchiness. The fundamental thing is to guide the reader into your topic and situate your ideas.
Conclusion
Scientific writing follows a specific format with key sections: an introduction to a particular topic, a hypothesis to be tested, a description of methods, key results, and finally, a discussion that ties the results. If you want to write a scientific paper, write the title that captures the essence of the paper. If someone was interested in your topic, think about the phrase or keywords they would type into a search engine. Make sure those words are contained in your title. The primary purpose of your scientific papers is to share your original research work with other scientists or to review the research conducted by others.
