How to write and publish a scientific paper - Barbara Gastel, Robert A. Day 2022

Reasons for the guidelines
How to write the introduction
Preparing the text

The first four guidelines for a good introduction need little discussion, being reasonably well accepted by most scientist-writers, even beginners. It is important to keep in mind, however, that the purpose of the introduction is to introduce the paper. Thus, the first rule (definition of the problem) is the cardinal one. If the problem is not stated in a reasonable, understandable way, readers will have no interest in your solution. Even if readers labor through your paper, which is unlikely if you haven’t presented the problem in a meaningful way, they will be unimpressed with the brilliance of your solution. In a sense, a scientific paper is like journalism: In the introduction, you should have a “hook” (a lead) to gain the reader’s attention. Why did you choose that subject, and why is it important?

Figure 10.1. (Created with BioRender.com)

The second, third, and fourth guidelines relate to the first. The literature review, specification of objectives, and identification of method should be presented in such a way that the readers will understand what the problem was and how you tried to resolve it.

Although the conventions of the discipline and the journal should be followed, persuasive arguments can be made for following the fifth guideline and thus ending the abstract by stating the main results and conclusions. Do not keep the readers in suspense; let them follow the development of the evidence. A surprise ending like that in an O. Henry short story might make good literature, but it hardly fits the mold of the scientific method.

To expand on that last point: Many authors, especially beginning authors, make the mistake of holding back their more important findings until late in the paper. In extreme cases, authors sometimes have omitted important findings from the abstract, presumably in the hope of building suspense while proceeding to a well-concealed, dramatic climax. However, this is a silly gambit that, among knowledgeable scientists, goes over like a double negative at a grammarians’ picnic. Basically, the problem with the surprise ending is that readers become bored and stop reading long before they get to the punch line. “Reading a scientific article isn’t the same as reading a detective story. We want to know from the start that the butler did it” (Ratnoff 1981, p. 96).

In short, the introduction provides a road map from problem to solution (see Figure 10.2). This map is so important that a bit of redundancy with the abstract is often desirable.

Figure 10.2. Introduction to an imaginary paper on effects of scientific-writing training. This introduction, which runs about 300 words, follows the “funnel format,” moving from general to specific. All content in this introduction is fictional.