Scientific writing 3.0: A reader and writer's guide - Jean-Luc Lebrun, Justin Lebrun 2021
The introduction answers key reader questions
Introduction: the hands of your paper
Paper structure and purpose
What is the main question of your paper? It is the question that you answer by stating your contribution. If you cannot phrase this question, you are not ready to write your paper because you do not yet have a clear idea of your contribution. To help you determine the main question, practice on the following familiar titles:
“Non-linear Finite Element Simulation to Elucidate the Efficacy of Slit Arteriotomy for End-to-side Arterial Anastomosis in Microsurgery”
Main question:
Having observed the efficacy of slit-arteriotomy in terms of blood flow and robustness of anastomosis for patients of various age and blood pressure conditions, can this efficacy be explained by modeling the mechanical stresses sustained by the arteries during and after the operation?
“Energy-Efficient Data Gathering in Large Wireless Sensor Networks”
Main question:
How can a sensor node be chosen to forward data in a large wireless sensor network so that total energy consumption for data forwarding in the network is minimized?
|
Read your title and abstract. Write the main question they answer. Is that question clearly stated in your introduction? If there is more than one question, you may have a paper with multiple contributions, and possibly a paper that could be divided into multiple papers. Or, you may not yet clearly perceive your contribution. |
As soon as you identify the main question answered by your paper, include it in your introduction. And here is an “Oh, by the way” remark that may turn out to be the only help your introduction needs to be close to perfect. “Oh, by the way, have you thought of putting this question to the reader in visual form?” As you know by now, nothing is better than a visual to demonstrate and convince. So make sure you spend the time to clarify first in your mind for yourself, and then on paper for the reader, that “mother of all questions”.
From that main question comes a mother lode of other questions: Why this? Why now? Why this way? Why should the reader care (how is your work relevant to the reader’s needs)?
The Questionable Cake
That afternoon, Vladimir Toldoff received a call from his wife Ruslana as he was finishing an experiment in the lab.
“I am coming with a cake, the cake knife, and enough plates and cutlery for four or five,” she announced.
He answered, “What? Wait! First, what is the occasion? And why now, can’t it wait until tonight? And by the way, what cake is it, and why do you want to cut it in the lab? You know that crumbs are not welcomed here.”
The rapid-fire questions did not faze Ruslana. She knew her Vladimir. A full-fledged scientist. She paused and rephrased his questions succinctly.
“All right, let me see. You would like to know why a cake, why eat it now, why its mouth-watering taste should make you shout ’Darling come right away,’ and why I should slice it in the lab instead of at home, am I right?”
Vladimir grinned. He was quite impressed with his wife’s listening skills.
“That’s right, Mrs Toldoff,” he responded.
Ruslana then uttered four words that had him shout for joy: “Your Medovik birthday cake”.
Through these why questions, the reader expects you to justify your research goals, your approach, as well as the timeliness and value of your contribution.
The following example taken from a life science paper illustrates how the writer answered these questions; it contains acronyms or jargon you may be unfamiliar with, but that should not deter you! The paper’s title is the following:
“A gene expression-based method to diagnose clinically distinct subgroups of Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma” (DLBCL)
Why now? In this case, because recent studies present diverging results.
“We were curious to see whether we could resolve the discrepancy between these gene profiling studies by using our current understanding of the gene differences between GCB and ABC DLBCL.”1
Why this? In this case, because there is a need for labs to deliver a coherent clinical diagnosis regardless of the platform used to measure gene expression.
“As was pointed out (3), it is a challenging task to compare the results of these profiling studies because they used different microarray platforms that were only partially overlapping in gene composition. Notably, the Affymetrix arrays lacked many of the genes on the lymphochip microarrays …”2
Why this way? In this case, because the method works on different microarray platforms.
“For this reason we developed a classification method that focuses on those genes that discriminate the Germinal Centre B-cell like (GCB) and the Activated B-Cell like (ABC) Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) subgroups with highest significance.”3
Why should the reader care? In this case, because it predicts survival regardless of the experimental platform.
“Our method does not merely assign a tumor to a DLBCL subgroup but also estimates the probability that the tumor belongs to the subgroup. We demonstrate that this method is capable of classifying a tumor irrespective of which experimental platform is used to measure gene expression. The GCB and ABC DLBCL subgroups defined by using this predictor have significantly different survival rates after chemotherapy.”4
To these reader questions, the reviewer adds other questions. Even though they overlap, they differ in important ways.
1)Is the problem clear, and is solving it useful?
2)Is the solution novel, and is it much better than others?
Therefore, you should have both reader and reviewer in mind when you write your introduction. It is up to you to convince them that the problem is real, and that your solution is original and useful.
|
Read the first paragraph of your introduction. Is it vacuous or considerable? If it is, delete it. Is the last paragraph redundant with the structure? If it is, delete it. |