NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS NE 185
Revised
and Updated Edition of F. Bruce
Sanford's
1957 "Planning
Your Scientific
Research Paper"
by Jon A. Gibson
National Marine Fisheries Serv., 166 Water St., Woods Hole, MA 02543
Print
publication date August 2004 ;
web version posted February 23, 2005
Citation: Gibson JA. 2004. Revised and updated edition of F. Bruce Sanford's 1957 "Planning your scientific research paper." NOAA Tech Memo NMFS NE 185; 36 p.
Download
complete PDF/print version
ABSTRACT
This manual presents numerous suggestions on how to plan your scientific
research paper. The first part deals with preliminary steps in planning
such as outlining, choosing headings, and making up tables. The last
part deals with the following: title, abstract, introduction, methods,
results and discussion, conclusions, summary, and literature cited or
bibliography. Much stress is laid on the importance of keeping your paper
in mind from the moment your research is conceived, of making adequate
use of tables and making them clear, of using outlines, and of using
headings. Particular attention is focused on the introduction and on
the need for stating your specific problem and for orienting your readers
to it. Suggestions are given on how to deal with problems in the writing
of the methods, results and discussion, and the conclusion. The differences
between the conclusions and the summary are made clear. Relationships
between the title and the abstract and between the title and the specific
objectives stated in the introduction are pointed out. Finally a reminder
is given of the importance of following the format of your journal when
you are citing the literature.
Preface to the Revised
Edition
In my 28 years as a technical writer-editor for the Northeast Fisheries
Science Center (NEFSC), I have been asked on several occasions by different
Center Directors and division chiefs to go beyond editing research papers,
to training specific individuals in order for them to write better papers.
In general, those individuals were young scientists who had been identified
as having strong research potential, but weak writing skills. In each
case, I worked one-on-one with the young scientist, evaluating his/her
previous papers, pointing out the relative strengths and weaknesses of
the writing, suggesting methods for correcting the weaknesses, and providing
reference materials for further self-training. The results for the young
scientists were mixed: some individuals showed improved writing, adopting
the lessons from the training; others showed little or no improvement,
reverting more or less to their pre-training weaknesses. Because I am
trained and experienced in technical writing and editing, but not as
an instructor per se of those activities, it is unclear to what
extent the mixed results were a consequence of the failures of the instructor
or of several of the instructees.
The results for me personally, though, were not mixed.
Every individualized training exercise took a lot of time and effort.
From an efficiency standpoint, I found it more and more difficult to
justify that time and effort with each new exercise. Consequently, I
began to look around for an existing training tool -- a manual, a videotape,
a course, anything -- which would let me effectively train individual
scientists without taking a lot of time, or, let me effectively train
many scientists concurrently regardless of the time taken. Dozens of
training tools, from a Society for Technical Communication training manual
to a U.S. Air Force training videotape to a U.S. Department of Agriculture
Graduate School training course, were evaluated, but nothing seemed to
address adequately the typical weaknesses in the writings of these young
scientists. I was resigned to having to design and deliver my own training
course.
Then I accidentally came across an old, faded report on "Planning Your
Scientific Research Paper," authored by F. Bruce Sanford, a chemist with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS's) Branch of Commercial Fisheries
in Seattle, Washington. The report was issued as U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Commercial Fishery Leaflet 10 (February 1957, 95 pages).
The title caught my attention, so I scanned the report. Although some
of the information in the report is outdated, and some of the information
I personally would not follow nor recommend that others follow, it nonetheless
-- as a whole and at the conceptual level -- comes the closest
to an effective and efficient training tool to address the predominant
weaknesses in the writings of the NEFSC's young scientists.
Soon after I came across the Sanford report, I attended a November
2002 meeting for scientific and technical editors of the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) in Seattle, Washington. A major thrust of that
meeting was to identify the needs of NMFS for improving its scientific
publishing program. Identified as a key need was the training of our
young scientists to write better research papers. I mentioned the Sanford
report; several at the meeting felt that it might be a useful training
tool, so I committed the NEFSC and myself to updating and revising the
report and re-issuing it in the NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE series
for use throughout NMFS as my counterparts might see fit.
This report is an updated and revised edition of Sanford's 1957 report.
Much of the new information which is conceptually different from the
original information has been kept separate from the original information.
In the paper version of this report, this new information is contained
in an "Endnotes" section; in the online version, this new information
is accessed through internal links. This separation of new and original
information has been done to achieve two objectives: 1) to recognize
properly the contributions of Sanford in his original work, and 2) to
identify the contributions of myself should there be any disagreements
by readers over the recommendations inherent in the new information.
Very limited editing of Sanford's original work has been performed where
there were some obvious errors, outdatedness, and awkwardness -- after
all, Sanford was a chemist, not an editor.
The original report had 23 figures: 18 which used cartoon-like caricatures
and provided humorous emphasis of the points made in the text, and 5
which provided substantive examples of the points made in the text. The
five substantive figures have been redrafted and appear in this updated
and revised edition of the report.
The separation of the original and new information also means that
the core of the report reflects the views of society and the manner of
language of almost a half-century ago. In one of Sanford's examples,
he describes how to cut up a whale for market. Throughout the report,
only masculine pronouns are used. There are other examples as well. If
anyone finds Sanford's original report to be politically incorrect and
thus offensive, then there is an antidote: grow older by about -- oh,
let's say -- 50 years, then look back; many of the views that are politically
correct today will not necessarily be politically correct then.
For NEFSC researchers, this report should not be read alone, but also
in combination with the NEFSC's official position on such matters: "Manuscript/Abstract/Webpage
Preparation, Review, and Dissemination: NEFSC Author's Guide to Policy,
Process, and Procedure" (Gibson et al. 2003). The NEFSC author's
guide contains important information which complements and supplements
the information in this updated and revised edition of Sanford's 1957
report.
Finally, I take this opportunity to thank Laura Garner, an editor with
the NEFSC's Research Communications Branch in Woods Hole, Massachusetts.
In my 24 years before Laura joined the NEFSC, I handled a host of time-consuming
technical and administrative tasks associated with the NEFSC's scientific
publishing program. In the five years since, Laura has handled a number
of those tasks, freeing me to undertake several special projects such
as this updating and revising of Sanford's 1957 report. She also retyped
the original report in order to have it available in an electronic format.
JON A. GIBSON
WOODS HOLE, MASSACHUSETTS
JUNE 14, 2004
"Your paper is both good and original.
Unfortunately, the good part is not original,
and
the original part is not good."
Ben Johnson (1702-1784)
PREFACE
TO THE ORIGINAL EDITION
(Note: This manual is not a scientific research paper; hence
it does not follow the style of such papers,
particularly in the use of
personal pronouns.)
DEFINITION
For the purposes of this manual, a scientific research paper is considered
to be a report in which you: 1) state what specific problem (or set of
closely related specific problems) you were trying to solve; 2) explain
the significance of your problem (if you think that your intended audience
may need this explanation for a full understanding of your work); 3)
tell what method you used to solve the problem; 4) give the results you
obtained; and 5) list the conclusions or the recommendations you arrived
at after considering these results. [See Endnote
#1.]
IMPORTANCE OF PLANNING
Giving careful thought to the plan of your paper is important to you
in three ways: 1) your research will be aided; 2) your papers will be
less difficult to write; and 3) your papers will be easier to understand.
AID TO RESEARCH
Carefully considering the organization of your research paper will
aid you in planning the research itself and will catalyze your flow of
ideas on the research. Furthermore, it will help to insure that your
research will be carried out soundly and that your findings will be published.
AID TO WRITING
If your paper is written poorly, it may be subject to major revision
-- which means, in addition to spending time in writing the original
paper, you must spend significantly further time in revising it.
The time spent in the revision of your work can be longer than the
time spent in the original writing; and if your paper is reviewed by
several critics, the number of pages of criticism can be more than the
number of pages of writing in your original paper. You then wearily must
read, evaluate, and act upon all of this tiresome criticism. If your
paper has been criticized and revised greatly, you hardly will be able
to recognize the final publication as being your own, and it still may
not be good. After a few experiences of this kind, you are likely to
lose much of your enthusiasm for research.
Experience has shown that a principal cause of poor writing in scientific
papers is poor planning. Experience has also shown that the poorly planned
papers require the greatest amount of revision. Your errors in grammar,
for example, can be corrected with relatively little difficulty; whereas
those in planning often require you to rewrite your entire paper. A knowledge
of planning therefore will make your paper much easier to write.
AID TO COMPREHENSION
The number of research papers now being published is so large you are
faced with the bitter choice of trying to keep abreast with the advancements
in your field or of doing research of your own. Your fellow scientists
have the same problem. They therefore read your published research papers
in the same way you read theirs -- hastily. Thus, if one of your papers
is poorly written, it is not likely to be given sufficient attention
for full appreciation and comprehension of your work. To the extent then
to which you fail to write your papers clearly, the time spent on your
research is likely to have been ineffectual; and the funds spent, to
have been wasted.
The seriousness of this problem seems not generally to be realized;
at least there does not seem to be a general awareness that anything
much can be done about it. Somehow, the impression prevalent among laymen
that scientific papers are hard to comprehend is believed by scientists
themselves. Thus if you publish a paper that is unclear, no one censures
you particularly, since the majority of your fellow scientists apparently
themselves believe that scientific papers are inherently difficult to
understand. Can you visualize, however, what the effect on science would
be if all papers were clear and easy to read -- if all you had to do
was to read rapidly through a paper once and you would comprehend it
completely?
You can see that such an improvement in the clarity of scientific papers
would effect almost a revolution in scientific progress.
Can all scientific papers be written in this manner? Experience in
writing, in abstracting, and in editing has led me to believe that they
can be. Without underestimating the great importance of the other elements
of composition, I also have been led by this experience to believe that
poor planning is one of the basic causes of unclarity in scientific papers.
My purpose therefore in presenting this manual to you is to enliven your
interest in planning and to offer you some suggestions that have proved
helpful to others.
PLAN OF THE MANUAL
The plan of this manual is simple, for it might be considered as having
only two main parts. In the first of these, you are given general suggestions
on the planning of your paper; and in the second, some rather specific
suggestions related to the title, the abstract, the introduction, the
methods, the results and discussion, the conclusions, the summary, and
the literature cited or bibliography.
PRELIMINARY
CONSIDERATIONS
GIVE THOUGHT TO IMPORTANCE
The quality of your research paper will depend in no small part upon
your attitude toward the writing. If you are not convinced that the paper
is an important part of your research and that the time taken to make
the paper easily readable and clear is well spent, you obviously will
not give the writing of the paper the attention that it requires.
During your period of university training, you probably spent only
5 percent of your time in learning how to write and some 95 percent in
learning how to do research. [See Endnote #2.] You
therefore unconsciously may feel that the writing is only about one nineteenth
as important as is the research work itself.
Yet, depending upon the use to which your research findings are to
be put, the effectiveness of your research may depend entirely upon your
paper. If, for example, the users of your results will not be able to
query you directly, your entire research effort may be wasted if you
write any of the essential parts of the paper in an ambiguous manner
or if you leave any important questions unanswered. Furthermore, if the
paper is too hard to read, the potential users of the results of your
research may never find the time to decipher what you have written. [See Endnote
#3.] Therefore, if you are not content to pass your
time in a scientific squirrel cage and really want to have your work
count for something, take the care in planning and in writing that is
required to make your paper unambiguous, complete, and easy to read.
PLAN FROM INCEPTION
OF RESEARCH
Writing your paper can be made much easier if you will start to plan
it from the moment that your research is conceived. Think back to whatever
papers you already have published and you undoubtedly will remember some
that would have been far less difficult to write if you had carried out
the research in a better manner.
You cannot write a logical paper if the research itself was not logically
organized, for your paper can never be any better than the research it
reports. By keeping your paper in mind while you still are able to modify
the direction of the research, you can make whatever changes are necessary
to enable you not only to do your research in the best way but also to
report it in a logically developed paper.
Keeping your paper constantly in mind is particularly helpful to you
in the following five ways:
- You save yourself from doing useless work by deciding, before you
start the research, whether the finding will be publishable. Incidentally,
in starting your research and in carrying it through to completion,
keep in mind that you eventually will have to write an introduction
to your paper in which you must show, directly or indirectly, the need
for the data you have obtained. Unless you carefully have determined
prior to undertaking the work and while completing it that your problem
is one that definitely needed solving by your particular organization,
you will find that the introduction will be exceedingly difficult to
write.
- You prevent yourself from wandering aimlessly. In each of your research
papers, you should make a concrete and specific statement of the problems
you were trying to solve. Obviously, if your research had no clearly
defined objectives, you cannot state them in the paper. By keeping
your paper in mind, you recognize the need for defining the objectives
of your research as soon as is possible, and you thus avoid wandering.
- You protect yourself from being sidetracked. One of the pleasures
of research is that of making an unexpected discovery. After such a
finding, you naturally are tempted to learn more about it unless you
clearly realize that the data you obtain in this new investigation
will not fit into the paper on the original problem. The correct procedure
is to keep on with your original objectives and to set up the new discovery
as a project for later investigation.
Often the only immediately tangible result of your research is your
research paper. After you have spent a reasonable time on your investigation,
you therefore are expected to write a paper reporting your results.
If you have followed the will-o'-the-wisp of new discoveries and have
not held to your original problem, you may be hard pressed to find
enough data on a single subject. You then may decide to throw into
one paper all of the data you have obtained on your series of more-or-less
unrelated experiments. Since the subject matter of the resulting paper
has no obvious unity, you are now faced with the tortuous experience
of trying to supply verbally the unity that was not inherent in the
investigation. After a paper of this kind has gone through the mill
of criticism, you well may have spent as much time on the work of writing
and of revising as you did in carrying out the original research. All
of this effort then may terminate in nothing worthwhile accomplished
because often such papers finally are rejected for publication.
Thus, it is not sufficient to have clearly defined goals; you must
stick to them.
- You help to insure yourself against overlooking or neglecting some
factor on which data must be given when you publish. Ordinarily, if
you fail to make some of the required observations, you will not discover
this fact until you start to write your paper -- which may not be until
after your project has been terminated and the data are impossible
to obtain. On the other hand, by keeping your paper constantly in mind,
you are not apt to overlook anything that you will require when the
paper is being written.
- You help to insure yourself against carrying out the work in an unscientific
manner: that is, the more thought that is given to the research, the
more likely it is to be sound. Also, by keeping your paper in mind,
you are more likely to watch for those points on which you might be
criticized when you submit your paper for publication.
From the discussion of the preceding five points, it is clear that
by giving thought to your paper while you are planning and carrying out
the research work, not only will you write a better paper, but you also
will do a better job of research.
MAKE EARLY DECISION
AS TO WHO WILL WRITE
Since most research projects are cooperative ventures involving several
workers, there may be a problem as to who will write the paper; that
is, the senior author is not necessary the one who does the actual writing
of it. Hence, a decision should be made as to which one of the research
workers is to have the primary responsibility for writing the paper and
for seeing it through to publication. This decision should be made early
so that the paper can be kept in mind from the very start of the research.
(Other aspects of authorship have been discussed by Young and Crowell
(1956).)
ALLOW SUFFICIENT TIME
FOR WRITING AND PUBLISHING
A common error in scientific writing is the failure of research workers,
in planning their project, to allow sufficient time for writing and publishing
the paper. This process of writing and publishing is complex and time-consuming,
particularly if several workers are involved. As a result, estimates
of the time needed are almost invariably too short. The writing and related
tasks required in the publishing of the paper then must be sandwiched
in between other projects or must be done outside of working hours.
Any delay in the publication of the paper can add greatly to the other
complications. Other rush projects may take every moment of available
time, or key workers may become ill or transfer to other jobs. Thus your
paper may never be published if sufficient time is not assigned for the
work that will be required in the writing and publishing of it.
ALLOW SUFFICIENT TIME
FOR SEARCH OF LITERATURE
As has been pointed out by Piskur (1956), the scientific literature
represents a tremendous amount of man-years of work that is available
to research, development, and production. Thus, in a search of the literature,
you obtain "experimental results, history of experiences, and data at
a cost in effort and supplies comparable to as little as a p.p.m. or
even a millimicro
of the
supplies and labors expended to produce this information." Obviously,
the failure to make a proper search of the literature is a colossal blunder.
Furthermore, when you write the
introduction to
your paper, you will look foolish if you have not searched the literature
well.
In many lines of research, the old idea of changing one variable at
a time is inefficient. You therefore should consider your statistical
requirements or possibly consult a statistician when planning your research.
At the termination of your project, however, you cannot expect the statistician
to wave his magic wand of mathematics over a hatful of unreliable data
and pull out a sound research rabbit for you. That is, statistics is
not a substitute for careful planning, sound experimental techniques,
and old-fashioned common sense.
TAILOR PAPER TO AUDIENCE
Write your paper in such a way that your intended audience will understand
it completely after rapidly reading it through once. [See Endnote
#4.]
To accomplish this, you will have to visualize your audience. In particular,
you will have to visualize the least informed individual who you wish
your paper to be read by, because you will have to write the paper at
a level he will understand. Otherwise, in effect, you will have eliminated
him from your audience and will have narrowed your readers accordingly.
The more specifically you can visualize this least informed individual,
the more successful you are likely to be in reaching the entire audience
you have in mind. By writing for a well characterized individual, you
will be able to determine better: 1) what he already knows, and 2) what
he needs to be told.
Remember that the better informed you assume this individual to be,
the narrower will be your circle of understanding readers. If you lose
sight of this fact, you unwittingly may exclude from this circle, by
your method of presentation, the very people you most would like to have
read and act upon your paper.
Unless you have a good reason for doing otherwise, I would suggest
that you visualize as your least informed reader, a recent graduate with
a bachelor of science or engineering degree in the field in which you
are writing. This practice will give you about the widest audience possible
without making your paper into a popular one or involving you in vast
amounts of explanation.
Whatever audience you choose, you should keep your presentation consistent,
for any shift in your point of view will alienate some of your readers.
If you start your discussion after introducing it on a more difficult
level, you will give your better informed readers the impression that
you are starting to talk down to them. By keeping one fairly well characterized
individual in mind while you are planning and writing your paper, you
are less likely to fall into these errors.
LIMIT SCOPE
Complexity of Ideas
To express an idea, you must use a certain minimum number of words.
Unless you use this required number, you are obviously doomed to failure. [See Endnote
#5.]
The number of words required depends upon two factors: 1) the complexity
of the idea, and 2) the background of knowledge of the least-informed
member of your audience. Owing to the limitation in space in the scientific
journals, you are restricted as to the type of subjects you can present
to certain audiences. If you do not keep this fact in mind, you may attempt
to present too complex an idea for the audience in the particular journal
in which you intend to publish. For this reason, you should carefully
consider whether the limitations in space in your contemplated journal
will preclude a successful presentation of the idea that you had in mind.
Number of Subjects
The more different subjects you present to your readers at one time,
the greater the difficulty they will have in understanding you, and the
harder you will find the paper to write. In planning your paper, make
certain you are dealing with only one problem or with only one set of
closely related problems. You are not justified in reporting two or more
separate research projects in the same paper -- even though you may have
studied all of them at the same time. Unity is just as important in scientific
papers as in any other type of publication. [See Endnote
#6.]
If you limit your paper to reporting only one problem or one set of
closely related problems, you may find that some of your papers are relatively
short. If you are not reporting upon a fragment of your research, do
not let this fact disturb you because there is nothing less "scientific" about
a short paper than about a long one. (This topic is treated by Young
and Crowell (1956).) The value of your paper lies not in its length but
in its contents.
CONSIDER THE TABLES [See Endnote
#7]
It does not appear generally to be realized that many subjects can
be presented better in tables than in words alone. Almost any subject
that is difficult to write because of its repetitive nature can be given
better in tabular form; that is, the use of tables is not limited necessarily
to the presentation of numerical data, as can be seen from Table 1. (Note:
This illustration shows you the value of using a table for repetitive
material. If you are skeptical, try presenting the contents of this table
in writing. Also, to conserve space, I have abridged the table, as I
have most of the others in this manual. The longer tables would have
illustrated the various points more impressively.) In fact, almost every
subject that can be presented in a table will take less writing time,
will require less space in a journal, and will be much easier for your
readers to comprehend if it is given in a table rather than in a written
discussion.
The names of the various parts of the formal table are shown in Table 2 (Jenkinson 1949). Table 3 gives a specific example corresponding to
Table 2. Compare these two tables. [See Endnote
#8.]
The following are suggestions on the preparation of tables:
- Present all of your tabular material in formal tables. There are
two reasons for this suggestion: a) the formal table, being able to
stand independently of the text, is the clearest of all tables; and
b) since the formal table does stand independently, the printer can
place it on the pages wherever it will fit best.
- Type each table on a separate sheet of paper. If you follow this
practice, you will not have to retype your table every time you revise
the text -- or vice versa. [See Endnote #9.]
- Give special thought to the title. Keep it short, if you can, but
make it adequate, and make it logical. The title preferably should
give the intent of the table rather than merely catalogue its contents,
which the reader readily can determine for himself by reading the various
headings. The title of Table 4, for example, might have been given
as: "Composition of press cake and of the corresponding meal produced
in different types of dryers." Such a title, however, would not show
exactly the relationships that the author had in mind. The title "Effect
of the type of dryer upon the vitamin content of the meal as compared
with that in the press cake" reveals more the intent of the author
because the information wanted was the following: a) is there a loss
of vitamins when the press cake is dried to meal?; and b) if the vitamins
are decomposed, which type of dryer contributes to the greater loss?
You can see that the title I suggested as a possibility does no more
than hint at these relationships and therefore is not nearly as good
as was the one chosen by the author.
- Try to place the units at the head of columns (Table 4), if at all
possible, rather than bury them in line captions (Table 5). (If your
head is nodding at this point, wake up because this suggestion is tremendously
important to you. Placing the units at the head of columns not only
greatly aids clarity but also makes your tables far easier to design.)
- Draw vertical guidelines between all columns. (Here is another simple
but highly important suggestion. Compare Table 6 with Table 7.)
- Draw the appropriate horizontal guidelines (Table 4 and Table 7.)
- If room permits, space each line of data (Table 8 and Table 9). To
learn whether horizontal guidelines and spacings between lines of data
in tables contribute to the clarity of the tables, I polled 53 readers
and asked them to compare Table 7 with Table 8, Table 8 with Table 9, and Table 9 with Table 10. The results of this poll, which are given
in Table 11 , indicate the following: a) most of the readers preferred
the use of horizontal guidelines; b) most of the readers preferred
relatively wide spacing between the lines of data; and c) when the
spacing between the lines of data was decreased, more of the readers
felt the need for horizontal guidelines than when the spacing was wider.
On the basis of this limited poll, I recommend that you take Table
4 and Table 8 as your standard format, without forgetting suggestion
No. 9 below.
- Make your tables stand independently of the text.
- Regardless of any of the preceding suggestions, follow the format
of the journal to which you intend to submit your paper.
- Test your table by asking someone who is not familiar with it to
explain it to you.
Your tables should be devised, of course, prior to the time that you
first start to gather your data. These data then can be entered in the
appropriate table as they are obtained. This practice will enable you
to follow the trend of your research more closely than if you wait until
you start to write your paper before devising your tables and entering
your data. By following this practice, you are not likely to miss taking
any of the essential observations.
CONSIDER THE GRAPHS [See Endnote
#10]
If the same information can be given in either a table or a graph,
the graphical presentation is likely to be comprehended more readily
by your readers. Tables, however, have certain advantages that should
not be overlooked. Exact values, for example, can be taken directly from
the table, whereas they are somewhat more difficult to determine from
a graph. If the policy of your journal permits, you therefore may wish
to present both the table and graph.
In constructing your graph, keep in mind that it probably will be photographically
reduced in size for publication. Therefore, make all of the lettering
and the figures large enough to be read easily in the published paper. [See Endnote
#11.] Do not forget to label your ordinate and abscissa
and to state the units, if any (Figure 1). [See Endnote
#12.]
The title of the graph should reflect your intent rather than merely
repeat the variables that can be read from your labeled ordinate and
abscissa. Figure 1, for example, might have been given the title: "Concentrations
of Potassium Nitrate Versus Temperature." This title lists the variables
but does not reveal much of the intent of the author. Note how much more
informative is the title: "Influence of Temperature on the Solubility
of Potassium Nitrate in Water." This second title supplies information
that otherwise might not be apparent to the reader.
The value of an informative title is illustrated further
by Figure 2. Could you have guessed the
intent of this table from a mere listing of the ordinate and the abscissa?
Follow, of course, the format of the journal in which you intend to
publish. You will save yourself much effort if you will check on the
format before you make the graphs.
CONSIDER THE PHOTOGRAPHS
AND OTHER ILLUSTRATIONS
Many subjects are impossible to present adequately by words alone,
and almost all others can be made clearer and more interesting if they
are illustrated. If your journal permits the use of illustrations, you
show a lack of perception if you do not make adequate use of them. [See Endnote
#13.]
Including illustrations in your paper often requires forethought. If
photographs are to be used, you may not be able to take them after your
project is completed. Try to schedule your photographs ahead of time
or at least to keep the need for them in mind while you are doing the
research.
MAKE OUTLINE
One of the really great labor-saving devices in the writing of scientific
papers is the use of an outline. Unfortunately, many beginning writers
in science are not convinced of this fact. The result is much unnecessary
work not only for the authors, but also for typists, critics, and editors.
It therefore follows that the least expensive way to write a scientific
paper is first to make an outline. The mere fact that you may have published
papers without an outline proves only that: 1) some of the published
scientific papers are vastly in need of improvement, and 2) many workers
who may be expert at research do not know how to plan and to write scientific
papers properly.
A word of warning: the use of an outline is not foolproof. The outline
simply enables you to organize your thoughts, but it does not guarantee
that you will do so. In short, the perfunctory use of an outline will
get you nowhere. Only by careful thinking can you be sure that your outline
will enable you to present your material to the best advantage.
Many writers have trouble getting started on their outline. If you
have this difficulty, you might try first to divide your subject into
its principal divisions:
| I. |
_____________ |
| II. |
_____________ |
| III. |
_____________, etc. |
Next, divide each of these divisions into its principal subdivisions:
| I. |
_____________ |
| |
A. |
_____________ |
| |
B. |
_____________ |
| |
C. |
_____________, etc. |
| II. |
_____________ |
| |
A. |
_____________ |
| |
B. |
_____________ |
| |
C. |
_____________, etc. |
| III. |
_____________ |
| |
A. |
_____________ |
| |
B. |
_____________ |
| |
C. |
_____________, etc. |
Continue this approach until you have completed your outline down to
the paragraph level. If you follow this process, you will find that you
have made several short outlines, with each succeeding one increasing
in complexity. You thus will have to reconsider your paper in its entirety
several times, but this is a small price to pay for a logically organized
paper.
In practice, you probably will find that it will be easier to develop
an outline for certain divisions of the paper than for others. Once your
ideas start to flow readily on a given division, go ahead and finish
it without worrying about the other ones. The point is not how you make
the outline but that you make a good one.
While you are reflecting on how best to write the paper, you may think
of a good idea concerning some subsection of it before you have thought
the paper through completely. As has been pointed out by Prince (1955),
a practice that you may find useful is to write down your ideas on the
subject, taking care to use a separate sheet of paper every time your
thoughts take a new direction. When you come to writing your final article,
you then can shuffle these papers until the various subjects discussed
fit into your outline. As long as you do not write on more than one subject
to a single piece of paper, you will have no trouble in fitting these
subjects into whatever logical outline you finally devise.
In developing your outline, do not be satisfied too easily. Check it
and recheck it, and then discuss it with your colleagues. If you have
a supervisor, you should give it to him for a final check. Remember that
only if your outline is logical and complete, will your problem of writing
be relatively easy.
Often times you can think of several different ways to write the paper.
If so, make an outline to correspond to each of them before arriving
at your final decision as to which way to write the paper. Making the
additional outlines will be far less work for you than will be the work
of revising the paper if you decide later that your first way was
not the best. Furthermore, the additional time spent in considering the
various outlines will clarify and help to firm up your ideas and will
greatly facilitate the later process of getting them down on paper. [See Endnote
#14.]
USE HEADINGS
A monumental discovery in the history of writing was the invention
of headings, for they serve two very important functions: 1) they act
as sign posts pointing out to the reader changes in your direction of
thought; and 2) they serve as filing guides showing where certain information
is given in the paper.
By the aid of headings, the reader is able to follow -- without confusion
-- intricate changes in your line of thinking, since the headings serve
as sign posts to guide him. The headings also enable the reader to: 1)
skip large sections of the paper, if he is so inclined, and to read only
those parts in which he has a particular interest; or 2) go back to these
parts, time and time again if need be, for data and other information.
Important though headings are as filing guides, the use of them as
indicators of changes in your direction of thought is vastly the more
important function. The mind of the reader has a certain amount of inertia.
It therefore will continue to follow along the same line of thoughts,
unless you supply a force sufficient to start it to think in whatever
new direction you desire. Headings are forceful enough to enable you
to accomplish these shifts in the thinking of the reader.
Theoretically, you could omit headings by substituting transitional
sentences and paragraphs. But why weary your readers unnecessarily by
forcing them to read a paragraph for which a short heading will suffice?
This question is not meant to imply that transitional sentences and paragraphs
are not useful in scientific writing, for they are. Rather, it is intended
to impress you with the fact that headings help greatly to reduce reader
fatigue. Furthermore, a short heading often will arrest the attention
of the reader far better than will a tiresome transitional paragraph.
Your readers therefore are less likely to get lost in your discussion
if you employ an adequate number of headings. In fact, unless you do
make adequate use of headings, your readers will seldom be able to understand
your paper completely on one rapid reading of it.
The editor of your paper, recognizing the great importance of headings,
often will supply them for you if you have omitted them. As you already
may have discovered, the headings supplied by the editor are not always
worded logically nor are they always placed at logical divisions. The
explanation for this apparent mental aberration on the part of your editor
is simple. Not having the benefit of proper headings when he reads your
paper, he may misinterpret what you mean, particularly if you also have
failed otherwise to write the paper well; and without the aid of an outline,
he often can only guess at the direction your thinking has taken. Do
not depend therefore upon the editor to supply your paper with headings.
Ordinarily, you can devise them better than he can.
As already has been indicated, the use of headings makes the writing
of your paper easier, since often they spare you the need for composing
transitional sentences and paragraphs, which can be hard to write. Headings
are also an indirect aid to you, in that they help to insure that your
paper will be logically organized; that is, it usually is difficult to
find suitable headings for an illogically planned paper, and you yourself
will become convinced that your paper needs reorganization. Furthermore,
the use of headings makes your paper much easier to comprehend. Critics
and editors therefore are more likely to find errors if any are in it.
In this use, headings admittedly do not save you any work, but they may
help to save your reputation.
Relationship between
Outline and Headings
Your outline and the headings of your paper are closely related in
two ways: 1) the headings in your written paper reveal the various divisions
in your outline; and 2) if you employ care in the wording of the outline,
the wording of the headings can be taken directly from the outline. In
a paper by Brown, Venolia, Tappel, Olcott, and Stansby (Submitted), for
example, the outline of the paper was as follows:
OXIDATIVE DETERIORATION IN FISH
AND FISHERY PRODUCTS.
II. PROGRESS ON STUDIES CONCERNING MECHANISM
OF OXIDATION IN FISH
TISSUE
|
| I. |
Introduction |
| II. |
Hematin catalysis |
| |
A. |
Hematin-compound content of fish |
| |
B. |
Catalytic effect of hematin compounds |
| |
C. |
Catalytic effect of proteins |
| |
D. |
Hematin-compound changes during oxidation |
| |
E. |
Rate of oxidation in fish flesh |
| III. |
Role of antioxidants |
| |
A. |
Naturally occurring antioxidants |
| |
B. |
Commercial antioxidants |
| IV. |
Oxidation of oil in fish meals |
| |
A. |
Rate of oxidation in meals |
| |
B. |
Effect of commercial antioxidants |
| V. |
Summary |
The corresponding headings in the paper were:
OXIDATIVE DETERIORATION IN FISH AND FISHERY PRODUCTS.
II. PROGRESS ON STUDIES CONCERNING MECHANISM
OF OXIDATION
IN FISH TISSUE
|
INTRODUCTION |
HEMATIN CATALYSIS |
| Hematin-compound content of fish |
| Catalytic effect of hematin compounds |
| Catalytic effect of proteins |
| Hematin-compound changes during oxidation |
| Rate of oxidation in fish flesh |
ROLE OF ANTIOXIDANTS |
| Naturally occurring antioxidants |
| Commercial antioxidants |
OXIDATION OF OIL IN FISH MEALS |
| Rate of oxidation in meals |
| Effect of commercial antioxidants |
SUMMARY |
You thus can see that the headings in the paper by Brown
and his coworkers were the same as those in their outline.
Types of Headings
Available
In the paper just cited, the degree of subdivision of the outline was
revealed by the types of headings used in the paper. There were, for
example, only two degrees of subdivision (Table 12). The first degree
of subdivision was shown by capitalizing all of the words in the heading
and by putting it in the center of the page:
HEMATIN CATALYSIS
The second degree of subdivision was shown by capitalizing only the
principal words in the heading, by putting it at the left-hand side of
the page, and by underlining it:
Hematin-Compound Content of Fish
With only two degrees of subdivision, you have no difficulty in devising
suitable types of headings -- even with the limited facilities of a typewriter
-- but you may require as many as six different types of headings with
an outline of the following degree of subdivision:
| I. |
___________ |
| |
A. |
___________ |
| |
|
1. |
___________ |
| |
|
|
a. |
___________ |
| |
|
|
|
(1) |
___________ |
| |
|
|
|
|
(a) |
___________ |
After you have given this problem some thought, you may wish to adopt
the system of headings widely used by those writing in publications of
the federal government. [See Endnote
#15.] In this system,
for convenience of reference, each type of heading is given a number
as follows:
THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF A TYPE-ONE
HEADING |
This
Is an Example of a Type-Two Heading |
This is an example of a type-three
heading |
| This Is an Example of a Type-Four Heading |
| This
is an example of a type-five heading. -- The type-five heading
is indented and made part of a paragraph as shown here. |
| 1. This
is an example of a type-six heading: The type-six heading is similar
to the type-five heading in that it is indented and made a part of
the paragraph, but it differs in: a) being numbered, b) not being
underlined, and c) having a colon rather than a period and a dash
following the last word. |
Perhaps you have not thought of the title of the paper as requiring
a separate type of heading. Nevertheless it does, and this type has been
designated by the number zero, as follows:
THIS IS AN EXAMPLE
OF A TYPE-ZERO HEADING:
TYPE-ZERO HEADINGS ARE
USED ONLY
IN THE TITLE OF THE PAPER
In the paper by Brown and co-workers, the title was a type-zero heading,
the principal subdivisions of the paper were type-one headings, and the
other subdivisions were type-four headings. (The reason why the last
was not a type-two heading, as would seem more logical, is discussed
in a later section of the manual.)
Capitalization of
Type-Two and Type-Four Headings
In the type-two and type-four headings, the articles a, an,
and the; the prepositions at, by, for, in, of, on, to,
and up; the conjunctions and, but, if, or,
and nor; and the second element of a compound numeral are not
capitalized as is shown by the following examples, which are taken from
the United States Government Printing Office Style Manual (Anonymous
1953).
Built-up Stockpiles Are Necessary
Men Hit with 2-Inch Pipe
No-Par-Value Stock for Sale
Price-Cutting War
Yankees May Be Winners
No Ex-Senator Admitted
Notice of Filing and Order on Exemption from Requirements
but
Building on Twenty-first Street (if spelled)
One Hundred and Twenty-three Years (if spelled)
Only One-tenth of Shipping Was Idle
Many 35-mm. Films in Production
Recommended Headings
If you will compare the preceding seven types of headings (types 0,
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6), one with another, you will see that unfortunately
many of them are very similar in appearance, and that for that reason,
your readers may have difficulty in distinguishing one type from another
one. Remember that the only way your readers can keep your outline readily
in mind is by the type of heading you use. Thus if he fails to distinguish
one type from another, he will become confused (Figure 3).
The ideal arrangement would be to use only those types of headings
that are as dissimilar in appearance as is possible. If, however, your
outline is as complex as the one illustrated in Figure 3, you would have
no choice as to the types you could use because you would require a type-zero
heading for the title to your paper and you would need to use all of
the remaining six types to distinguish between your various subdivisions.
Fortunately, it so happens that most scientific research papers do not
require such a high degree of subdivision. You therefore ordinarily have
a choice among the types of headings you can use.
The problem now becomes, which types are the most dissimilar and how
should they be chosen? The following method of choosing the best types
of headings to use has been tested and has been found to work well. In
this method, you first classify your paper into one of six categories,
which are determined by the complexity of the outline of your paper as
follows:
Outline of category-A papers (one subheading):
| I. |
___________ |
| II. |
___________ |
| III. |
Etc. |
Outline of category-B papers (two subheadings):
| I. |
___________ |
| |
A. |
___________ |
| |
B. |
___________ |
| |
C. |
Etc. |
Outline of category-C papers (three subheadings):
| I. |
___________ |
| |
A. |
___________ |
| |
|
1. |
___________ |
| |
|
2. |
___________ |
| |
|
3. |
Etc. |
Outline of category-D papers (four subheadings):
| I. |
___________ |
| |
A. |
___________ |
| |
|
1. |
___________ |
| |
|
|
a. |
___________ |
| |
|
|
b. |
___________ |
| |
|
|
c. |
Etc. |
Outline of category-E papers (five subheadings):
| I. |
___________ |
| |
A. |
___________ |
| |
|
1. |
___________ |
| |
|
|
a. |
___________ |
| |
|
|
|
(1) |
___________ |
| |
|
|
|
(2) |
___________ |
| |
|
|
|
(3) |
Etc. |
Outline of category-F papers (six subheadings):
| II. |
___________ |
| |
A. |
___________ |
| |
|
1. |
___________ |
| |
|
|
a. |
___________ |
| |
|
|
|
(1) |
___________ |
| |
|
|
|
|
(a) |
___________ |
| |
|
|
|
|
(b) |
___________ |
| |
|
|
|
|
(c) |
Etc. |
After deciding which category your paper falls into, you then choose
the proper headings as follows:
Headings for category-A papers (those with one subheading):
| I. |
Type-1 heading |
| II. |
Type-1 heading |
| III. |
Etc. |
Headings for category-B papers (those with two subheadings):
| I. |
Type-1 heading |
| |
A. |
Type-4 heading |
| |
B. |
Type-4 heading |
| |
C. |
Etc. |
Headings for category-C papers (those with three subheadings):
| I. |
Type-1 heading |
| |
A. |
Type-4 heading |
| |
|
1. |
Type-5 heading |
| |
|
2. |
Type-5 heading |
| |
|
3. |
Etc. |
Headings for category-D papers (those with four subheadings):
| I. |
Type-1 heading |
| |
A. |
Type-2 heading |
| |
|
1. |
Type-4 heading |
| |
|
|
a. |
Type-5 heading |
| |
|
|
b. |
Type-5 heading |
| |
|
|
c. |
Etc. |
Headings for category-E papers (those with five subheadings):
| I. |
Type-1 heading |
| |
A. |
Type-2 heading |
| |
|
1. |
Type-3 heading |
| |
|
|
a. |
Type-4 heading |
| |
|
|
|
(1) |
Type-5
heading |
| |
|
|
|
(2) |
Type-5 heading |
| |
|
|
|
(3) |
Etc. |
Headings for category-F papers (those with six subheadings):
| I. |
Type-1 heading |
| |
A. |
Type-2 heading |
| |
|
1. |
Type-3 heading |
| |
|
|
a. |
Type-4
heading |
| |
|
|
|
(1) |
Type-5 heading |
| |
|
|
|
|
(a) |
Type-6 heading |
| |
|
|
|
|
(b) |
Type-6 headin
g |
| |
|
|
|
|
(c) |
Etc. |
You will note from the foregoing that the type-three and type-six headings,
being the least distinctive ones, are used only in those papers that
require so many different types that all the others need also be used.
If you examine the scientific literature, you will find that most papers
fall into categories B, C, or D.
The paper by Brown and co-workers, for example, falls into category
B, and this is the reason why the type-four heading was used in that
paper instead of the type-two heading, as might have seemed logical.
(The present manual falls into category C.)
Use of Headings with
Individual Paragraphs
Ordinarily, you will not set off each individual paragraph by a heading.
The factor determining whether you should use a heading for an individual
paragraph depends upon how abruptly you shift your line of thought. Remember
that one of the principal purposes of headings is to indicate to your
readers that your direction of thought has changed. Therefore where the
subject matter of your paper varies markedly from one paragraph to another,
do not hesitate to use headings to signal this fact to your readers.
In this manual, for example, you will find numerous places, in addition
to the present paragraph, where I have set off individual paragraphs
by headings.
Logical Use of Headings
One error often made by scientific authors is to use headings illogically.
Suppose that the following is the outline of a paper:
| I. |
_________ |
| |
A. |
_________ |
| |
B. |
_________ |
| II. |
_________ |
This is a category-B paper, and the correct headings therefore are:
| I. |
Type-1 |
| |
A. |
Type-4 |
| |
B. |
Type-4 |
| II. |
Type-1 |
Quite often, however, an author chooses the correct types of headings,
but mixes them up illogically as follows:
| I. |
Type-1 |
| |
A. |
Type-4 |
| |
B. |
Type-1 |
| II. |
Type-4 |
If you will make an outline and follow it, you easily can avoid this
kind of error.
As has been pointed out earlier, you also will find that if in devising
your outline you use care in the wording of it, you can take the titles
for the headings directly from the outline. This practice has the great
advantage of helping to insure that your headings will be logical and
parallel in form.
Importance of Headings
Of all the devices that you can use to make your paper easy to read
and to comprehend, headings must be ranked among the most important.
Unless you make adequate use of them, you never can achieve your maximum
potential as a writer of clear scientific papers. In concluding this
section, I therefore strongly urge that you always give careful thought
to the headings when you write your future papers.
GIVE THOUGHT TO THE
PARAGRAPHING
The use of paragraphs has much the same function as the use of headings;
that is, the paragraph alerts the reader to the fact that you have finished
discussing one topic and now are ready to discuss another. There also
is a further parallel between headings and paragraphs in that the heading
signals to the reader that the group of paragraphs being considered is
related, and the paragraph signals that the group of sentences is related.
In the same way also that you should not have long sections in your
paper without organizing them into shorter subsections, you should not
have long paragraphs without trying to break them into shorter groupings;
that is, long paragraphs, like long sections, are mentally tiring for
the reader. If it is at all logically possible, the long paragraphs therefore
should be broken into shorter ones. View with suspicion any paragraph
that is longer than a typewritten page because it usually can be separated
logically into smaller divisions.
Pay particular attention to the opening paragraph. A long opening one
looks formidable, promises much dull reading, and tends to repel prospective
readers.
It is very important that your paragraphs be logical units of thought.
An example of a type of paragraphing that gives scientific authors much
difficulty in this respect is the following:
The
analysis was carried out in two steps.
In
the first step, so and so, and so and so, and so and so was done…
In
the second step, such and such, such and such, and such and such
was done…
As you can see, this is logical paragraphing, and it is clear. You
know how many steps there are, and you know where the description of
each one starts. You may feel, however, that you are breaking some rule
of composition by using a one-sentence paragraph such as:
The
analysis was carried out in two steps.
There is no objecting to the use of the one-sentence paragraph -- if
such use aids reader comprehension. Naturally it should not be overdone
because it would defeat its purpose of arresting the attention of the
reader. If all of the above paragraphs are short, for example, all three
should be combined into one paragraph:
The
analysis was carried out in two steps. In the first step, so and so,
and so and so, and so and so was done… In the second step, such and
such, such and such, and such and such was done…
The introductory sentence, in this example, belongs just as much to
the second step as it does to the first one. I grant that combining the
introductory sentence with the paragraph explaining the first step is
only slightly illogical, but this practice is far more serious than you
might think because in scientific writing, you need be only slightly
confusing to cause your readers much mental fatigue.
You complicate matters further if you forget about parallel construction
and start your description of the second step with different wording
from that used with the first step:
The
analysis was carried out in two steps. In the first step, so and
so, so and so, and so and so was done…
The
second step consisted in such and such, such and such, and such and
such…
Your attention has been focused on these slight changes, and you know
what they are, but you will be surprised at how fast you can lose an
inattentive reader by this confused method of breaking up your paragraphs
and of presenting your thoughts. This confusion will be greatly compounded
if you use several paragraphs to describe the first step and several
to describe the second.
Let me hasten to add that these faults are minor in comparison to leaving
out the introductory statement:
In
the first step, so and so, so and so, and so and so was done…
The
second step consisted in doing such and such, such and such, and
such and such…
Now visualize the confusion if you also neglect to mention that you
are describing the first step:
So
and so, so and so, and so and so was done…
The
second step consisted in doing such and such, such and such, and
such and such…
If your reader has been half asleep, the statement about the second
step may wake him up, and he will go back to discover what your first
step was. If your discussion is short, he may have no difficulty in finding
the first step, but if your discussion is long, he may waste much time
before he discovers where in your paper your discussion of the first
step begins.
The last example is not the worst. You also might omit mentioning that
you are describing the second step:
So
and so, so and so, and so and so was done…
Such
and such, such and such, and such and such…
In addition, you might run the paragraphs together:
So
and so, so and so, and so and so was done…Such and such, such and
such, and such and such was done…
Do all these things, and you leave your readers with a nice little
puzzle to solve -- if they ever get around to it.
THE
TITLE
In searching the literature, have you ever been misled by the titles
of certain papers into believing these papers would furnish you with
the information you needed? On the other hand, because of poorly worded
titles, have you ever rejected certain other papers only to discover
later, through different sources, that these particular ones really were
important? If so, you already are aware of the need for carefully wording
your title.
TOO GENERAL
One of the pitfalls to avoid in wording the title is to make it too
general. Although such a title may inform the reader that your paper
treats subjects in his field of interest, it will not tell him whether
your paper contains the particular information he needs. After a worker
fruitlessly has looked up a large number of papers because of titles
that are overly general, he tends to become highly critical and to reject
all those general titles. Unless your title is specific, your paper may
be among those eliminated -- possibly incorrectly.
INCOMPLETE OR MISLEADING
Another common error in titles is that of incompleteness. Thus, your
paper may treat certain subjects, but your title may give no clue to
this fact. Still another difficulty is that your title may be misleading
in that it indicates your paper is about one subject, whereas it actually
is about another.
SHORT VERSUS SPECIFIC
TITLES
In planning and writing your paper, you may fall into errors such as
making your title too general, incomplete, or misleading, owing to your
desire to keep the title from becoming overly long. Now, although it
is important to have a short title, it is even more important to have
one that correctly reveals the main contents of your paper.
You have only to go through the tiresome act, however, of writing out
the titles to half a dozen papers to discover the great virtue of brevity.
It therefore is unfortunate that brevity and specificity usually are
not compatible. With many of your papers, the title will be a compromise
between what you think should be mentioned and what space you think can
be spared for it. The following examples illustrate how the length of
the title increases as the title becomes more specific:
Measurements
Fish Measurements
Determining Fish Measurements
Accurately Determining Fish Measurements
Device for Accurately Determining Fish Measurements
Photographic Device for Accurately Determining Fish Measurements
Automatic Photographic Device for Accurately Determining Fish Measurements
Fully Automatic Photographic Device for Accurately Determining Measurements
of King Salmon
Fully Automatic Photographic Device for Accurately Determining Measurements
of King Salmon (Oncorhynchus tsawystcha)
Fully Automatic Photographic Device for Accurately Determining Measurements
of Live King Salmon (Oncorhynchus tsawystcha)
Fully Automatic Photographic Device for Accurately Determining, Aboard
Ship, Axial Measurements of Live King Salmon (Oncorhynchus tsawystcha)
Fully Automatic Photographic Device for Accurately Determining, Aboard
Ship at Near-Freezing Temperatures, Axial Measurements of Live King Salmon
(Oncorhynchus tsawystcha)
Fully Automatic Photographic Device for Accurately Determining, Aboard
Ship at Near-Freezing Temperatures Under All Conditions of Lighting,
Axial Measurements of Live King Salmon (Oncorhynchus tsawystcha)
To arrive at the proper balance between specificity and brevity, you
will have to give much thought to the subject. A good plan is to assign
a temporary title when you first start to consider your paper and then
to improve upon the title as time goes by. The first one you think of
usually is not the best.
IMPRACTICAL SOUNDING
Another unfortunate aspect of scientific titles is that some of them
sound impractical. In fact, often the better and more specific the title
-- from the scientific point of view -- the less sensible it may sound,
especially to the layman who might not be sufficiently acquainted with
your project to see the need for it. Take for example, the title: "Fully
Automatic Photographic Device for Accurately Determining, Aboard Ship
at Near-Freezing Temperatures Under All Conditions of Lighting, Axial
Measurements of Live King Salmon (Oncorhynchus tsawystcha)." You
can see that this title sounds pedantic. To make it actually ridiculous,
all you now need to add is something like: "Caught at the Mouth of Hunter
Creek" or "Caught at the Mouth of Hunter Creek by Frogmen."
You should keep this aspect of titles in mind because often it is a
layman who must approve of the bill for your investigation, and you cannot
expect him to be enthusiastic about a project that does not seem to be
of value. If your title is unavoidably pedantic sounding, make sure that
you show the significance of your work when you write the introduction
to your paper.
THE
ABSTRACT
Your abstract has two principal functions: 1) to supplement your title,
and 2) to give the reader an overall view of your paper.
In the function of supplementing the title, the abstract supplies further
information on what the paper is about. As we have seen, owing to the
need for brevity, the title does not always reveal completely the contents
of your paper. The abstract, not being quite so limited in length, makes
up for this deficiency. Thus a principal function of it is to supplement
the title and thereby help the reader to decide whether your paper will
be of sufficient value to him to warrant his time spent in reading it.
One of the main requirements of the abstract is that it be short and
to the point. If it is wordy, the prospective reader may reject both
your abstract and your paper.
In the function of giving the reader an overall view of the paper,
the abstract helps him to keep from getting lost in the maze of details
most scientific papers contain. After having read the abstract, he can
see better where these details fit into the overall picture. For this
reason, the small amount of space taken by your abstract more than pays
for itself in aiding your readers to a quick comprehension of your paper.
A well-known technique in writing and in public speaking is the following:
1) tell your readers what you are going to tell them, 2) tell them, 3)
tell them what you told them.
In the writing of scientific papers, the abstract is step 1 of this
technique, the body of the paper is step 2, and the summary is step 3.
The use of this technique helps to insure that your readers will understand
your paper completely the first time they read it.
A problem a
