To learn how to organize your articles, study articles in high-impact English-language journals

In the fields that I'm familiar with—biology, biotechnology, and medicine—there is often a huge difference in the quality of writing between what is published in high-impact journals, and what is published in little journals. It seems to me that it's probably a positive feedback cycle: Because high-impact journals are more prestigious, more people want to publish there, so the editors can afford to demand clearer, better-organized writing. Because the writing is better, more researchers read the articles and find useful information and ideas in them. This leads to more citations, maintaining these journals' high impact factor. I think that it's not only the quality of the science that makes journals like Nature, Science, and British Medical Journal so popular and prestigious; it's also how clearly the ideas are presented in the pages of those journals.

The articles in these kinds of journals are worth using as models, even if you don't think that your study will be published in such a prestigious journal. First, you can be almost certain that the English in these journals is correct. Second, the way that the ideas are organized and presented in these journals will help you make your ideas clearer and more interesting to a wider range of readers, which will help your research get the attention it deserves.

I suggest that you find some articles that you find interesting in high-impact journals, and then make an outline of the main ideas in the article, to see how the authors organize their ideas. This will teach you how to outline and organize your own articles. To show you how to do it, I've made an outline of the main ideas in the introduction to an article entitled Oxytocin bolus versus oxytocin bolus and infusion for control of blood loss at elective caesarean section: double blind, placebo controlled, randomised trial (Sheehan et al. 2011) from BMJ (British Medical Journal).

Before you write your article, write one sentence that will guide you

My scientific writing students and my editing clients often seem to get lost while writing their articles. It's as if they set out to cross the forests of Siberia without a map and compass, or a GPS, and with no clearer goal than the hope of reaching an ocean someday. And whereas some people might enjoy months or years of footloose wandering through a real wilderness, my clients generally don't enjoy the feeling of being lost while writing. So what I try to do is show them some techniques that will help them write a clear, focused article that is organized like those that are in many high impact journals.

How to explain the novelty of your research (Part 2)

The first post in this series looked at language that can be used when there is a knowledge gap. This post will focus on language you can use when there is an inconsistency in current knowledge, or a problem.

Here are some examples:

• "However the definition of compost and biowaste stability is a matter of some debate." (MacLeod et al. 2008)
• "The effects of sex steroids on the GH-IGF system reported to date are enigmatic." (Hansen et al. 2013)
• "The use of artificial media and amended soils in ecotoxicity studies remains a subject of debate." (Maderova et al. 2009)

To indicate an inconsistency or problem in current knowledge, these examples all use a word that implies some kind of doubt or controversy. A similar word that would also work well is "conflict", as in: "Reports on X appear to conflict." Because these sentences all summarize the state of the art in their field, they would work well at the beginning of a paragraph full of examples, as Maderova et al. do in their article.

EXERCISES 
Read some studies in your field that were written by researchers working in English-speaking countries. Do they make clear what is unknown? How do they make it clear? With the pattern we have seen today, or with different language?

COMING UP
I am going to take a break from writing during the next two weekends, so my next post will be on January 5th, 2014.

SOURCES
Hansen AM, Kittilson JD, Martin LE, Sheridan MA, "Environmental estrogens inhibit growth of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) by modulating the growth hormone-insulin-like growth factor system." General and Comparative Endocrinology (2013): doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ygcen.2013.11.013 [unedited manuscript that had been accepted for publication]
Maderova, Lenka, Julian JC Dawson, and Graeme I. Paton. "Cu and Ni mobility and bioavailability in sequentially conditioned soils." Water, Air, & Soil Pollution 210, (2010): 63-73.
MacLeod I, Savage AL, Pahl O, Baird J, "Decline in microbial activity does not necessarily indicate an end to biodegradation in MSW-biowaste: A case study." Bioresource Technology 99 (2008): 8626-8630.

How to explain the novelty of your research

Good introductions to scientific papers always answer several questions for the readers. One of these questions is the following: What is unknown about your research topic? What is a gap in current knowledge, or a problem, or an inconsistency? (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)

In last week's post, you might have noticed some similarities in the language that the authors used to answer this question. Here are some of those sentences; they all effectively explain the knowledge gap with language that is easy to use:

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)
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)
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)

These sentences all share two elements:

1. words that are used for contrast (however, yet, but), and 
2. either the word "no" or what Swales and Feak (2004, 258) call "quasi-negative" language (no scientific reports, few studies, studies…are rare). 

The contrast word signals the reader that the focus of the introduction is changing from what is known to what is unknown. The word "no" or the "quasi-negative" language stress that little or no research has been done in this area, highlighting the novelty and originality of the authors' work. This helps to convince the editors and reviewers to accept the article, and the readers to read the article and perhaps to cite it. Because it is so important to highlight the knowledge gap, the ideal place to put these sentences is in one of the "power positions" of English discourse: at the beginning or at the end of a paragraph (Zeiger 2000, 99-100).

An important part of the grammar of these sentences is the difference between countable and uncountable nouns:

• With countable nouns, you should use "few", e.g. few studies, few reports.
• With uncountable nouns, you should use "little", e.g. little research, little data.
• You can use "no" with countable and uncountable nouns.

EXERCISES:
Read some studies in your field that were written by researchers working in English-speaking countries. Do they make the knowledge gap clear? How do they make it clear? With the pattern we have seen today (contrast word + no/"quasi-negative language"), or with different language?
Try to use the language pattern in this post to explain the knowledge gap that your next paper will attempt to fill. Remember to put this sentence at the beginning or the end of a paragraph.

SOURCES
Ahn, H. K., T. L. Richard, and H. L. Choi. "Mass and thermal balance during composting of a poultry manure—Wood shavings mixture at different aeration rates." Process Biochemistry 42 (2007): 215-223.
Scharlaken, Bieke, Dirk C. de Graaf, Karen Goossens, Marleen Brunain, Luc J. Peelman, and Frans J. Jacobs. "Reference gene selection for insect expression studies using quantitative real-time PCR: The head of the honeybee, Apis mellifera, after a bacterial challenge." Journal of insect Science 8 (2008), available online: insectscience.org/8.33
Sun, B., F. J. Zhao, E. Lombi, and S. P. McGrath. "Leaching of heavy metals from contaminated soils using EDTA." Environmental pollution 113, no. 2 (2001): 111-120.

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.
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: A practical guide to becoming a better writer, speaker & atmospheric scientist. 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.

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.