I suggest that you write your paper from the inside out.Begin with the all important recipes,the Materials and Methods.Next,collect your data and draft the Results.As your experiments end,formulate the ourlines of a Discussion.Then write a working conclusion.Now,
go back and write the historical context, the Introduction. Only after all else has been written and tidied up, will you have sufficient perspective to write the Title and the Abstract.
Throughout the writing, your tools and techniques will be the same. You should use precise words and, whenever possible, numbers. You should write direct sentences that follow a straight line from point A to point B. In addition, you should fill all
sections of the stereotyped skeleton of a standard scientific paper.
Writing a paper should be an active part of your research. If you wait until your studies are finished before you begin to write, you will miss a powerful tool. Research is iterative--you do, you assess, and you redo, and writing a paper is a way for
you ro continually make the reassessments necessary for critical and perceptive research.
Your manuscript can even be a blueprint for your experiments. The empty skeleton of scientific paper poses a set of research questions, and ,as you fill in the skleton, you automatically carry our an orderly analysis of your data and observations. Moreover,
by setting new data into the draft of your paper, you can maintain perspective. You will filter out the shine of newness, as your results-- even unusual results-- are pur into the contest of yout exsting data and your full research plan.
As a scientist, you must write, and, as an experimentalist, writing while you work strengthens your research. Writing a paper canbe an integral part of observational science.
A Stereotyped Format
Scientific papers have a stereotyped format:
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References
There are no novel constructions or inventive twists of the narrative. Instead, the framework is unchanging so that the content can be studied without distraction. The predictable form of a scientific paper,with its standard set of sections arranged in a
stereotyped order, ensures that a reader knows what to expect and where to find specific types of information.
2. PRECISE LANGUAGE
Within this stereotyped format, the language of a scientific paper aims to be clean, clear, and unemotional.
Much os the color of our everyday language detives from ill-defined, emotion-ally charged, ear-tickling images conjured up by sensuous words such as'slovenly','sibilant',and 'sneaky'. Science, however, avoids colorful words.
The essential characteristic of scientific writing is clarity. Slippery words and vague phrases are confusing, and there is no plave for amiguity, arcane language, or froth in the archives of scientific records. In science, descriptions must be precise,
recipes must be complete, data must be exact, logic must be transparent, and conclusions must be cleanly stated.