Scientific writing 3.0: A reader and writer's guide - Jean-Luc Lebrun, Justin Lebrun 2021
Introduction metrics
Introduction Part II: Popular traps
Paper structure and purpose
✓(+) The introduction starts fast, without warm-ups.
✓(+) The introduction finishes with the anticipated outcome of the research.
✓(+) The introductory segments enable the non-expert reader to benefit from the paper. They represent more than 15% of the paper.
✓(+) References are never in groups exceeding three, the majority are single.
✓(+) All four “why” questions are answered explicitly: why this, why now, why this way, and why should the reader care.
✓(+) The introduction is active, personal, and story-like.
✓(+) Methods, data, and/or application field correctly frame the scope of the paper.
✓(+) The rare imprecise words found in the introduction are qualified immediately after their use (“several… such as”)
✓(+) Judgmental words are never used and the story plot is well connected.
✓(+) Background is provided for each specific title keyword.
✓(−) The first sentences of the introduction are known to non-expert readers, or attempt to warm the reader by referring to the hot research topic.
✓(−) The introduction does not finish with the impact of your contribution.
✓(−) Bridging the knowledge gap has not been considered. Introduction size is below 10% for a regular scientific paper.
✓(−) References are presented in groups exceeding three.
✓(−) The answer to one or more “why” questions is missing
✓(−) The mostly passive voice introduction uses less than three personal pronouns.
✓(−) The scope of the paper is mentioned in parts only, and not easily identified.
✓(−) Imprecise words are sprinkled throughout the introduction.
✓(−) Judgmental words are found in the introduction, or the story plot does not include comparisons or does not relate the paper to past papers.
✓(−) Background is missing for some specific and intermediary title keywords.
AND NOW FOR THE BONUS POINTS:
✓(+ + +) The introduction contains one visual or (+ + +) the average number of words per sentence in your introduction is 22 words or less.
© Jean-Luc Lebrun 2011
1 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
2 https://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/plagiarism.pdf
3 Reprinted excerpt with permission from Peter J. Feibelman. “Partial Dissociation of Water on RU(0001)”, SCIENCE Vol 295:99—102 © 2002 AAAS.
4 http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0212043v1
5 Watson, J., Crick, F. Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid. Nature 171, 737—738 (1953). https://doi.org/10.1038/171737a0
6 Copyright 1993 by Peter J. Feibelman, “A PH.D is not enough: a guide to survival in Science” published by Basic books.
7 Why from the targeted journal? Because you show the editor of that journal that your work is relevant to their interests. But be reasonable — 20—30% of references from the targeted journal is fine. 80—90% might instead give the illusion that you are not well-read and only know their journal.