![\"middle](\"http:\/\/blogs.library.mcgill.ca\/schulich\/files\/2015\/10\/middle-of-nowhere.jpg\")
<\/a>What are the characteristics of a good scientific paper? What should we look for when reading a paper and what elements should we consider including when writing one? We tackled this topic in class by discussing what should be in each section of a research article, which is summarized in the points below:<\/p>\n- \n
- Introduction\/Background<\/strong> section: Publishing a journal article is a method of communicating research findings and helps build a researcher\u2019s professional reputation. However, Professor Tufenkji also reminded us that one of the purposes of a research article is to educate readers. Imagine that one of the article\u2019s readers is a beginning graduate student in this area. Therefore, the introduction\/background section of the article is where the authors should explain the context of the research by summarizing and citing previous work in the area, describing how this study builds on previous publications or is different from them, stating the motivation of the study (the \u201cwhy\u201d), and presenting the research question\/hypothesis (the \u201cwhat\u201d). This section usually starts from the general (the summary of previous work) and moves to the specific (the research question\/hypothesis).<\/li>\n
- Methods<\/strong> section: Includes a detailed description of the steps the authors took to conduct the experiment\/study (the \u201chow\u201d) so that readers can reproduce the study if they wish. The more details the authors can provide to help the reader understand and replicate what was done, the better (e.g., state the pH of a sample, the volume of the sample, how or where it was obtained, etc.).<\/li>\n
- Results<\/strong> section: Simply describes what was found. The results section should be presented in the same order as the methods section to make it easier for readers to follow. For example, if the authors conducted two experiments and described the steps for Experiment 1 first in the methods section, then the reader would also expect the results for Experiment 1 to appear first in the results section.<\/li>\n
- Discussion & conclusion<\/strong> sections: Interpret the results by explaining to the reader what the data means and comparing this data to previous published literature on the topic. This is also where the authors use the data to make appropriate and logical conclusions (without generalizing or over interpreting the results) and describe directions for future research.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
The authors should write the paper in a way that makes the greatest impact on its readers, such as writing an article title that describes the major finding of the article and writing the article in a language that is as clear as possible (see a list of wordy phrases<\/a> to avoid using when writing a manuscript).<\/p>\n
![\"lol](\"http:\/\/blogs.library.mcgill.ca\/schulich\/files\/2015\/10\/lol-title-300x199.jpg\")
<\/a>Remember that while the article is written in the order that the authors went about conducting the experiment\/study (i.e., Introduction\/Background \u2013 Methods \u2013 Results \u2013 Discussion\/Conclusion), this does not mean that you need to read the article in this order. I frequently skim a research article in the following order to quickly extract the main points: after reading the abstract, I jump to the discussion and conclusion sections to find out what the research all means, then back track to the introduction\/background to get the context for the research, look at the results for more details of what was found, paying attention to any figures or tables that summarize the main findings of the article, and finally examine the details in the methods section. If the article is relevant for my own research or impacts my professional practice, I will read it thoroughly, otherwise I will put it aside.<\/p>\nThis is the first in a series of weekly posts about topics relating to research skills and ethics. Stay tuned for the next post in the series, which will be about determining authorship for a scientific paper.<\/p>\n
Images from the Laugh-Out-Loud Cats<\/a> cartoon strip by Adam “Ape Lad” Koford <\/em>(creative commons license<\/a>)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
I am fortunate this semester to be able to participate in a new graduate Chemical Engineering course called \u201cCHEE 687 Research Skills and Ethics,\u201d taught by Professor Nathalie Tufenkji. This course covers a wide range of topics dealing with how … Continue reading
- Methods<\/strong> section: Includes a detailed description of the steps the authors took to conduct the experiment\/study (the \u201chow\u201d) so that readers can reproduce the study if they wish. The more details the authors can provide to help the reader understand and replicate what was done, the better (e.g., state the pH of a sample, the volume of the sample, how or where it was obtained, etc.).<\/li>\n