On writing a scientific paper

(Part 3 of 4)

The usual structure of a research paper

A research paper usually has the following components and sections: a Title, the list of Authors and their Affiliations, some Keywords and a Running Title (if required), an Abstract (or Summary), an Introduction, a Materials and Methods section, a Results section, a Discussion section, the Conclusion, Acknowledgments, a Conflict of Interest Statement (if required), the Contribution of the Individual Authors (if required), a List of References, and Tables and Figures (if any).

The Title is a clause that describes what was done in not so many words. It must include enough information to interest a potential reader.

Titles come in two basic forms. The Title might describe the work in general terms (this is especially true of older articles). An example would be “Molecular structure of nucleic acids; a structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid” (the Title of the classic paper by Watson and Crick (Nature 1953; 171:737-738), where they described their model of DNA). These days, the Title tends to be more “assertive,” and is usually a sentence that asserts a conclusion (see Rosner (1990) Nature 345:108 for an analysis of the Titles used over the years). An assertive form of the Watson and Crick Title might be “The structure of DNA is a double helix.” We cannot recommend which type of Title to use. We simply caution that what may be asserted as a scientific fact today may no longer be valid tomorrow. 

Who are listed as Authors and the order in which they are listed are sometimes rather contentious issues. In our opinion, anyone who has contributed significantly to the work should be included in the list of authors. The person who did the most work is usually listed first (the First Author); the head of the group, who (is assumed to have) had the idea for doing the study, is usually listed last (the Senior Author); those listed in between are the ones who contributed to various components of the study. But in these days of collaboration among several groups and the participation of many researchers in a project (sometimes numbering in the hundreds), many could legitimately claim to have done the most work and be First Author, and the head of each of the groups might wish to be the Senior Author. (In some cases, this has led to ugly fights.) These days, a Corresponding Author (the one who is in charge of communicating with the journal and who handles inquiries about the paper) is also identified. 

More and more, one sees two or more individuals identified as having contributed equally to the work. But some may find even this arrangement not entirely satisfactory (because only one of them could be listed first). 

When a paper is cited by another, the full list of authors is often not provided (picture citing an article that has hundreds of authors). Justifiably, the list is often truncated. Some journals limit the citations to just the first name on the list, with “et al.” to indicate the existence of other authors; some journals set the limit to just the first three names; some to just the first six. (Many people like to see their name in print and to them being simply in the “et al.” may leave a bad taste in the mouth.) 

There is a new trend in regard to authorship: the contribution of each author is detailed at the end of the manuscript. Soon, the percent contribution of each author may even be indicated. This is probably the fairest way of giving credit to whom credit is due. At any rate, the lead authors and study leaders are expected to uphold research ethics and ensure that all those listed as authors had made significant contributions and deserve to be authors.

The Abstract (or Summary) summarizes the work that is being reported. Usually, the Abstract introduces the problem and summarizes the methods used, the results, and the conclusions arrived at. The form of the Abstract varies from journal to journal. Some journals require that the summarization be organized under descriptive headings (e.g., Background, Objective, Methods, Results, and Conclusions). Some journals allow summarization using simple sentences. 

The Introduction provides an adequate background of the study being reported (with references to previous work), the problem and objective of the study, how the problem is to be solved, the methods to be used, a brief summary of the results, and the conclusions drawn from the results (whether or not the original objective was achieved). Why the study is important should be stressed here.

The Materials and Methods section gives the procedures used to collect and analyze the data used in the study. This section must be complete and enough detailed to allow others to repeat the study and verify the results. Intentional omission, or inadequate description, of procedural steps, or of critical reagents, is scientific fraud and is not tolerated. Those who are found to have committed scientific fraud become persona non grata in the science community and could lose their funding and their jobs.

We encourage inclusion in this section of the difficulties encountered in the performance of the experiments. This is to help others avoid similar problems.

The Results section gives the raw data obtained from the experimental procedures and the results of the analysis of the data. “Doctoring” of data, or of results, also is scientific fraud.

The presentation of the results must be clear, using tables and figures, if necessary. The contents of the tables and/or figures must be adequately described in the footnotes to the tables and in the figure legends, so as not to require reference to the text.

The Discussion section gives a thorough analysis of the results. Unexpected or anomalous findings should be explained, or rationalized. The importance of the study should be emphasized in this section also. The relation to other people’s findings must be included, with proper attribution to the significance and importance of those findings to the study being reported. 

The Conclusion section gives a synopsis of the findings. Predictions and plans for further studies may be included here.

The list of References should be complete but not too numerous. We encourage that pioneering studies should be cited, not so much reviews (unless the reviews were written by those who did the original studies). Here, again, this is to give credit where credit is due.

(To be concluded)

* * *

Gisela P. Padilla-Concepcion is a professor at the Marine Science Institute, UP Diliman, and is currently UP vice president for academic affairs. She is a member of the NAST. She can be reached at [email protected]. Eduardo A. Padlan is a retired research scientist, formerly with the US National Institutes of Health. He is currently serving as an adjunct professor at the Marine Science Institute. He is a corresponding member of the NAST. He can be reached at [email protected].