Scientific writing 3.0: A reader and writer's guide - Jean-Luc Lebrun, Justin Lebrun 2021

Four principles for a good structure
Headings-subheadings: the skeleton of your paper
Paper structure and purpose

A structure that plays its role follows these four principles:

1. Contribution guides its shape.

2. Headings and subheadings detailing the contribution are grouped.

3. Title words reflective of the contribution (not necessarily all title words) are repeated in its headings and subheadings.

4. It tells a story clear and complete in its broad lines.

Studying the structure of your paper allows you to identify important problems, such as an imperfect title, or a paper which is too complex, too detailed, too premature or too shallow.

Let us review the structure of the paper on slit arteriotomy. The words in italic are common to both title and structure.

Non-linear Finite Element Simulation to Elucidate the Efficacy of Slit Arteriotomy for End-to-side Arterial Anastomosis in Microsurgery¹

1. Introduction

2. Mechanical factors underlying slit opening

3. Methodology for computer simulation

3.1Reference configuration for the finite element model

3.2Geometry details and boundary conditions of the finite element model in the reference configuration

3.3Hyperelastic material for the arteries

3.4Simulation procedure for the operation

4. Results and discussion

5. Conclusions

Recall that a title has two parts: the front part represents its contribution; and the back part, its context.

“Non-linear Finite Element Simulation to Elucidate the Efficacy of Slit Arteriotomy [Contribution] for End-to-side Arterial Anastomosis in Microsurgery [Context]”

Principle 1: the contribution guides the shape of a structure

In the example above, three headings are standard: Introduction, Results & discussion, and Conclusions. Standard headings are disconnected from titles; they contain no title word. They simply mark the location and the function of a part. In contrast, headings 2 and 3 are meaningful: they contain nearly half the title words, and relate directly to the contribution.

Heading 3 dominates this structure. With four subheadings, it provides much detail on the contribution. The subheadings organize the details in a logical order. All of this is to be expected, is it not? A structure should be the most detailed where the author has the most to write about, namely the scientific contribution of the paper. The structure has to expand to match the level of detail by offering more subheadings to help organize these details in a logical order, for the benefit of the reader and for the sake of clarity ( 1).

Figure 1

Contribution is often found under the heading which has the deepest level of indentation, and the largest number of subheadings.

This first principle has a corollary: when excessively detailed parts do not contain much contribution, the structure lacks balance.

· A secondary part may be too detailed. Simplify or move details to appendix, footnotes, or supplementary material.²

Figure 2

This structure points to one or several of the following problems: (a) background is too detailed; (b) contribution is small, therefore writer fills up paper with background; (c) Writer underestimates the knowledge level of the reader.

· The knowledge level of the reader is underestimated. Remove details and provide references to seminal papers and books ( 2).

· Subheadings are “sliced and diced” too small. When a section with only one or two short paragraphs has its own subheading, it should be merged with other sections.

· The top-level structure is not divided into enough parts. For example, the background section is merged with the introduction. As a result, many subheadings are necessary within the introduction. Add headings at the top-level of your structure to reduce the number of subheadings.

· The paper has a multifaceted contribution that requires a large background and an extensive structure. Rewrite it as several smaller papers ( 3).

Principle 2: Headings and subheadings detailing the contribution are grouped

When the branches containing the contribution are scattered instead of being grouped, the structure lacks singleness of focus ( 4).

Figure 3

This structure points to one or several of the following problems: (a) the top-level structure has too few headings; (b) the contribution is too large for one single paper; (c) subheadings need to be merged.

· There may be more than one contribution in the paper; to make sure the paper is accepted, the writer stuffs his paper with contributions. The titles of such papers are very difficult to write! It is better to focus one paper around one contribution and have another paper (or letter) cover the additional contribution.

· The paper may not yet be ready for publication. The contribution is scattered in disconnected parts. The paper lacks unity and conciseness: repetition is unavoidable in such cases.

· The writer may be unable to identify the main contribution of the paper, or unable to establish a priority between major and minor contributions. The paper and its title probably lack focus.

Principle 3: Title words describing the contribution are repeated in the headings and subheadings of a structure

A structure disconnected from its title is either unhelpful or indicative of a wrong title. Since the role of a structure is to help the reader navigate inside your paper and identify where your contribution is located, a structure should have its headings and subheadings connected to the title ( 5).

Figure 4

Grouped headings and subheadings show that the contribution is well identified and unique. When headings and subheadings covering the contribution in detail are dispersed throughout the structure, the structure has problems.

Let us apply the third principle to our sample structure and consider headings 2 and 3.

2. Mechanical factors underlying slit opening

Heading 2 contains ’slit,’ a title word found in the first part of the title describing the contribution. Heading 2 seems to be written for surgeons, whereas, heading 3 is definitely written for people on the IT side of mechanical engineering. Recall that the paper is published in the journal of Biomechanics, read by scientists from two different words — life sciences and engineering sciences — who may have difficulties understanding each other’s work for lack of background knowledge. Therefore, it does make sense for the structure to address both types of readers.

Heading 2 takes us through the surgery steps of slit arteriotomy and the mechanically induced stresses and deformations observed during the surgery. At this point, surgeons stop reading but mechanical engineers read on and find in heading 3 the model for the steps described in heading 2.

Figure 5

Title keywords reappear in structure headings and subheadings to allow direct reader access to key parts of the paper.

3. Methodology for computer simulation

3.1Reference configuration for the finite element model

3.2Geometry details and boundary conditions of the finite element model in the reference configuration

3.3Hyperelastic material for the arteries

3.4Simulation procedure for the operation

Heading 3 and its four subheadings contain ’simulation’ and ’finite element,’ two words located in the front part of the title (contribution part). They confirm that this heading, like heading 2, belongs to the contribution-related section of the paper. The author could have added ’nonlinear’ to strengthen the coherence between title and structure. The specificity of the words in heading 3 and its subheadings conveys to the surgeons the message that this section of the paper is not written for them.

This third principle has a corollary: When headings and subheadings are disconnected from the title of a paper, the structure OR the title may be wrong.

· The structure reflects the contribution better than the title. For example, a structure where the word ’trajectory’ appears in three of the five headings, and yet does not even appear once in the title, betrays an imperfect title.

· The structure is too cryptic. Its headings and subheadings are too generic, brief, or tangential. They do not give enough information on the contents. Revise the structure and reconnect it to the title.

· The structure contains synonyms of the title words, or specific keywords replacing the title’s generic keywords or even an acronym made of title words. Having lost homogeneity and coherence, the article is less clear. Return to the original keywords, or change the title to make it more specific.

Principle 4: A structure tells a story that is clear and complete in its broad lines

According to this fourth principle, someone unfamiliar with the domain of computer simulations should be able to see the logic of the story after reading the title, the abstract, and the successive headings and subheadings.

Is this story clear?

1. Introduction

2. Mechanical factors underlying slit opening

3. Methodology for computer simulation

3.1Reference configuration for the finite element model

3.2Geometry details and boundary conditions of the finite element model in the reference configuration

3.3Hyperelastic material for the arteries

3.4Simulation procedure for the operation

4. Results and discussion

5. Conclusions

Heading 2 takes the reader into the operating theater, to observe the surgeon cut and stitch the arteries. Under the sharp blade of the scalpel, the arteries open; they deform under the pressure of fingers and the pull of stitches. Once the surgery is completed, the reader can imagine the blood flowing through the arteries, opening the slit wider.

Heading 3 provides details on the simulation.

Subheading 3.1 defines the initial state of the simulated objects.

Subheading 3.2 gives details on the model parameters (arteries, slit) and defines their limits.

Subheading 3.3 describes how the arteries, key objects in the simulation, are modeled.

Subheading 3.4 makes the simulation steps correspond to the steps of the actual surgery.

The story is coherent with what the title announces, but it is incomplete. There is no link between the model and the result (elucidation). This could easily have been achieved by replacing the standard heading “Results and discussion” with a more informative heading such as “Elucidation of the efficacy of slit arteriotomy,” thus establishing a direct connection between the model and its results, and encouraging the surgeons to read this section also.

The story may not be clear to surgeons unfamiliar with finite element modeling. This is clearly seen by the expert vocabulary used in headings 3.1 and 3.2. Six of their words (reference, configuration, geometry, details, boundary, conditions) are not even found in the abstract, whereas the words used by all other subheadings are found in the abstract.

The fourth principle has a corollary: when headings or subheadings reviewed in sequence tell a nonsensical story, the structure has holes or the title is wrong.

· The paper could be premature: its structure has not yet reached clarity. More work is needed until the structure falls into place.

· The story is nonsensical because it is not the story of the title, but another story. Change the title or rewrite the paper. You have the wrong face for the right body, or vice versa.

· The headings and subheadings are too concise or too cryptic — possibly because of the use of acronyms, synonyms, or highly specific keywords understood only by experts. Write more informative and understandable headings and subheadings.

· Key subheadings or headings are missing. Subdivide the obscure heading/subheading to reveal the missing connectors, or insert a new heading or subheading in the structure.