Examples of how to answer the readers' questions in your introduction

In the previous post, we looked at the characteristics of a good introduction to a scientific research article. Good introductions should answer 3-4 questions for the readers (e.g. Zeiger 2000, 107-109; Booth et al. 2003, 224; Swales and Feak 2004, 244; Schultz 2009, 34; Valiela 2009, 139-140; Harmon and Gross 2010, 3-13: Schimel 2012, 35-65):


1) What is the current state of knowledge about your research topic?
     
     1a) Why is this topic important, interesting, or both?
2) What is unknown about your topic? What is a gap in current knowledge, or a problem, or an inconsistency? 

3) How did you attempt to fill the gap, solve the problem, or resolve the inconsistency?

Today we will start to look more closely at the language you can use to answer these questions. To help us do this, I have made a collection of sentences from articles that my students and editing clients have been reading recently.

EXERCISE:
Please sort the following sentences. Does each sentence answer question 1, 1a, 2, or 3? Or does it answer some combination of questions, for example, 1 and 1a? Make a note on a piece of paper as you read each sentence, for example: A – 2, B – …

A) "However, there are no scientific reports comparing the use of these three freely available Excel-based tools for evaluation of the stability of reference genes in Hymenoptera." (Scharlaken et al. 2008)
B) "Analyzing the thermal balance with a range of aeration rates would thus prove useful in designing and operating a composting system efficiently and controlling heat loss." (Ahn et al. 2007)
C) "In column leaching processes, kinetics of HM [heavy metal] desorption/dissolution may become a more important factor than under batch extraction conditions; yet few studies have addressed this aspect." (Sun et al. 2001)
D) "In this study, we carried out an intensive evaluation of 10 commonly used housekeeping genes in 13 different human tissues, and outlined a procedure for calculating a normalization factor based on multiple control genes for more accurate and reliable normalization of gene-expression date." (Vandesompele et al. 2002)
E) "Investigations of optimal operational factors and proper control of the composting process have been reported by several researchers, but studies investigating the thermal balance of this process are rare." (Ahn et al. 2007)
F) "Most studies have been conducted in small samples of women and few have compared the upper genital tract frequency of nongonococcal/non-chlamydial microorganisms between women with and those without endometritis or salpingitis." (Haggerty et al. 2004)
G) "Pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), the infection and inflammation of a woman's fallopian tubes (salpingitis) and uterine lining (endometritis), is a frequent and morbid condition among young women." (Haggerty et al. 2004)
H) "Preterm birth (PTB), defined as delivery at less than 37 weeks of gestation, continues to be one of the major unsolved problems in obstetrics." (Stout et al. 2013)
I) "The present study was carried out to examine the mass and energy balance under two different aeration rates, which were set to maintain oxygen levels in exhaust air above 10 and 15%." (Ahn et al. 2007)
J) "The aim of the present study was to investigate the efficiency of EDTA extraction of Zn, Cd, Cu and Pb." (Sun et al. 2001)
K) "Previous researchers recommended a variety of aeration rate ranges to optimize the composting process." (Ahn et al. 2007)
L) "Statistical algorithms such as geNorm, Normfinder, and BestKeeper have been developed to assess the appropriateness of reference genes." (Scharlaken et al. 2008)
M) "The aims of this study were to monitor bioavailability and toxicity from a range of Cu- and Ni- amended soils by measuring the activity of a bioluminescent microbial biosensor Escherichia coli HB101 pUCD607." (Maderova et al. 2010)
N) "The use of artificial media and amended soils in ecotoxicity studies remains a subject of debate." (Maderova et al. 2010)
O) "We tested the hypotheses that bacterial vaginosis and bacterial vaginosis-associated microorganisms are independently associated with endometritis in the PID [pelvic inflammatory disease] Evaluation and Clinical Health (PEACH) Study, a multicenter randomized clinical trial designed to compare the effectiveness of inpatient and outpatient treatment for mild to moderate PID." (Haggerty et al. 2004)


Keep reading to find the answers.

4 Keys To Writing A Successful Introduction

• What is a good introduction to an English-language paper about scientific research?
• How is a good introduction different from a literature review?
• Why is an introduction necessary?

To answer these questions, we will look the characteristics that are shared by all good introductions to research articles.


An introduction to a scientific research article should answer 3-4 questions for the readers (Zeiger 2000, 107-109; Booth, Colomb and Williams 2003, 224; Swales and Feak 2004, 244; Schultz 2009, 34; Valiela 2009, 139-140; Harmon and Gross 2010, 3-13: Schimel 2012, 35-65):



1) What is the current state of knowledge about your research topic?
 
     1a) Why is this topic important, interesting, or both?

2) What is unknown about your topic? What is a gap in current knowledge, or a problem, or an inconsistency?

3) How did you attempt to fill the gap, solve the problem, or resolve the inconsistency? 



Question 1 is always answered in successful introductions. There should be enough information so that readers of the journal can understand the knowledge gap that you are trying to fill (Lindsay 2011, 24; Schimel 2012, 56). Remember that you should not give too much information; this is not a textbook, nor a test of how much you know about the topic.

Question 1a is not always answered; however, it is often answered (Zeiger 2000, 108-109; Swales and Feak 2004, 244) and several authors recommend that you do answer it (Harmon and Gross 2004, 11-13; Schultz 2009, 34-35; Valiela 2009, 139; Schimel 2012, 40-42). Explaining why your topic is important and interesting can help convince the editor to send your article out to the reviewers. It can also convince readers to finish reading your paper. Although many students of English do not answer this question, it is easy to answer if you learn a some key words and phrases that are relevant to your field.



Question 2 is always answered in a successful introduction. The answer helps convince the journal editor, the reviewers, and the readers of the novelty of your work. By clearly describing the knowledge gap, you create space for your article in the crowded, competitive world of modern research (Swales and Feak 2004, 243-244). Sadly, my personal observations agree with what Schultz (2009, 194) has written: many English-language learners do not answer this question well. Improving your answers to question 2 may be the key to improving your introductions.



Question 3 needs to be answered, and this is almost always done at the end of the introduction, as most students know. This information must be included because everything else in the introduction builds up to it. For English-language learners, it is important to learn how to answer question 3 briefly and precisely.



To sum up, a good introduction answers key questions for the readers. Although an introduction cites the literature, it should be different from a literature review. This is because a good introduction defines a knowledge gap; it prepares and motivates the readers to read about your research; and it helps convince the editor and the reviewers to accept your article. For these reasons, a good introduction is necessary. The language you need to write a good introduction will be an ongoing topic of this blog.

EXERCISE:
Read some introductions written by native-speakers. Find the parts where they answer the above questions. Is there any useful language you could use? Can you rewrite the sentences with the useful language so that they describe your research?

COMING SOON: Some examples with useful language.

REFERENCES:
Booth, Wayne C., Gregory G. Colomb, and Joseph M. Williams. The craft of research. University of Chicago Press, 2003.
Harmon, Joseph E., and Alan G. Gross. The craft of scientific communication. University of Chicago Press, 2010.
Lidsay, David. Scientific Writing = Thinking in Words. Csiro Publishing, 2011.
Schimel, Joshua. Writing science: how to write papers that get cited and proposals that get funded. Oxford University Press, 2012.
Schultz, David M. Eloquent Science. American Meteorological Society, 2009.
Swales, John M. and Christine B. Feak. Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Tasks and Skills. The University of Michigan Press, 2004.
Valiela, Ivan. Doing Science: Design, Analysis, and Communication of Scientific Research. Oxford University Press, 2009.
Zeiger, Mimi. Essentials of writing biomedical research papers. McGraw-Hill, 2000.

Advice From Wiley-Blackwell Author Services: Repeat key words

The idea of trying to repeat words can seem strange to students of scientific English who come from non-English-speaking cultures. These students understand that a clear and direct style will help them to communicate with readers around the world, but they still feel uncomfortable repeating words.  The students' cultures often value varied and inventive expression more than English-speaking cultures do, and put less emphasis on clear and direct communication. Some of my Polish students have told me how their high school teachers took away points if they repeated words—"Never, never repeat words!" one student told me, shaking his finger as he imitated his teacher. The problem is that many synonyms in English have very specific meanings, so if you use a synonym, you change the meaning enough that your writing is no longer accurate and precise.

Therefore, it is important to repeat key words (the words that express the most important ideas in your article). This makes your writing clearer and more precise, and it helps connect your ideas so that other scientists can follow your thinking. It also has an additional benefit: if you repeat key words, you have a better chance of being read and cited.

I first saw this information on how repeating key words increases your chances of being cited on David M. Schultz's Eloquent Science blog. Schultz had posted a link to a page on Wiley-Blackwell Author Services which I excerpt below:

Optimizing your article for search engines will greatly increase its chance of being viewed and/or cited in another work…The crucial area for optimization is your article's abstract and title, which are freely available to all online…most [search engines] now scan a page for keyword phrases, giving extra weight to phrases in headings and to repeated phrases…In search engine terms, the title of your article is the most interesting element. The search engine assumes that the title contains all of the important words that define the topic of the piece and thus weights words appearing there most heavily. This is why it is crucial for you to choose a clear, accurate title. Think about the search terms that readers are likely to use when looking for articles on the same topic as yours, and help them by constructing your title to include those terms…The next most important field is the text of the abstract itself. You should reiterate the key words or phrases from the title within the abstract itself. You know the key phrases for your subject area, whether it is temporal lobe epilepsy or reconstruction in Iraq…Use the same key phrases, if possible in the title and abstract. Note of caution [author's emphasis]: unnecessary repetition will result in the page being rejected by search engines so don't overdo it. The examples below illustrate the difference between an abstract which is well-optimized and one which is not. [I recommend that you look at the examples in the original.]

In other words, as Schimel (2012, p. 5) has written, "It is the author's job to make the reader's job easy." Think about what words your readers are likely to search for. Put those key words in your title, and repeat those key words in your abstract. This will make it easy for readers to find your article. When you're writing your article, find the clearest, most precise words to explain your important ideas to your readers. Repeat those those key words; this will make it easy for your international readers in China, Argentina, Egypt or Germany — they don't want to be forced to use their dictionaries again and again. Remember, if you mean "bacteria", but instead you write "microbes", "microorganisms" or "prokaryotes", just to avoid repetition, your papers may be repeatedly rejected or returned for revision. Okay, I think I've repeated myself enough — after all, the Wiley-Blackwell Author Services page warns that we shouldn't overdo it ;-)





CALL FOR COMMENTS: Please help make Better English for Scientific Impact a better resource for teachers and students everywhere. If you find a good example of precise, clear scientific writing, post a reference to it in the comments and it may be included in a future lesson. If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, please post them too.

REFERENCE:
Joshua Schimel, Writing Science: How to write papers that get cited and proposals that get funded (OUP: Oxford, 2012), 5.

Good Paragraph Organization: An example from a classic article

We have a classic article for our first example of scientific writing with the kind of good paragraph organization that I explained in my last post. The article is the original short communication in which Watson and Crick proposed what is now an accepted structure for DNA (you can get the complete, original article for free here). I have deleted all the sentences except those at the beginning, and sometimes the end, of each paragraph. This way you can see how the most important sentences are in these places.

Before we look at their article, think about what you know about the structure of DNA. Then as you read the article, notice how the beginnings and endings of the paragraphs are almost like an abstract. These sentences summarize what most scientists know about the structure of DNA, plus some details that are of basic importance to geneticists, cell biologists, biochemists, and others in similar fields. This is how you should write your articles: the beginnings (and sometimes the endings) of paragraphs should be almost like an abstract of your work.