Writing Scientific Papers

Know Your Audience

When writing for journals, it is safe to assume you are writing to an audience of experts in your field. You do not need to describe specific terms such as mitochondria, explain how specific tools such as NMR work, or provide a chemical equation of a simple acid/base reaction.

However, an expert in your field is not the same as an expert in your research. Be sure to define any specialized techniques your lab uses or names of specific molecules you worked with. Molecular structures and diagrams of specialized equipment are also useful.

Write Objectively and Use the Right Words

For academic journals, your writing should be clear, plain, and objective. The tone should be formal and professional. Use third-person, passive voice, which is the accepted standard in journals:

• No: I added 10.0 g of NaCl to the solution.
• No: Add 10.0 g NaCl to the solution.
• Yes: 10.0 g of NaCl were added to the solution.

Figurative language should be avoided as well, as it can get distracting and convolutes your message. Complex terminology and abbreviations should be defined in the text the first time they appear. You also need to abide by the conventional rules of grammar, syntax, and punctuation so that your  writing is clear and coherent.

For more guidance, refer to the ACS Guide to Scholarly Communication or ask others to proofread your work.

Balance the Layout

Whether it is printed on paper or online, any layout you submit is likely to be changed during publication. However, there is still a lot you can—and should—do to make your manuscript easy to read.

Avoid writing large blocks of text. Break up text into smaller paragraphs to make the information easy to digest. Use a combination of long and short sentences to keep readers engaged. A picture is worth a thousand words, so add diagrams, charts, and other visual elements when appropriate. 

Include Figures and Tables

Figures and tables should be labeled clearly and referenced in the text. Use figures as a guide for your readers. Many researchers look at the data long before they read the text, so include a description with figures and tables in the caption. For example, “Table 1. Percent yield for the ligand synthesis with varying pH.” Some writers even create graphical abstracts that serve as an effective way to visually provide a brief synopsis of their manuscript.

Figures, charts, and tables should be easy to read and interpret at a glance. If you create a flow chart, it should be easy to follow. If you use colors to indicate different traces on a graph, they must be distinguishable. If you incorporate graphs, include axis labels, units, and a legend.

Lastly, make sure that the data you include is meaningful. Don’t just throw it in there as a space-filler. It has to contribute to your discussion in some capacity.

Find Supporting Literature

You will need to incorporate a good amount of background information in your introduction, supported by references, to provide the prior knowledge your research is based on, its significance, and how it is unique from other work. In all likelihood, you already collected these references when you were starting your research, but you should verify you are up-to-date on the literature. 

Be sure to use peer-reviewed journal articles or government-approved patents. Check databases and online tools such as ACS SciFinder, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Reaxys, and National Center for Biotechnology Information databases. Start with whatever journal access is provided by your institution, then check with any professional societies you belong to. For example, ACS members can search ACS publications for free and download up to 50 papers per year. If you get really stuck, try contacting the researchers themselves; many will be pleased to share copies of their papers.

Manage and Cite Sources

To keep all your sources organized, you may want to use an online reference manager such as Mendeley, ReadCube, ACS ChemWorx, Zotero, RefWorks, or EndNote. These programs allow you to save, create, and share citations. Each one has different features, but all serve similar purposes. Whichever one you choose to sort your references, make sure your method is robust. You’ll thank yourself later.

Don’t Procrastinate

Whether you feel you work better under pressure or simply have a lot to do, it’s easy to procrastinate. Don’t do it. Build in your own deadlines so that you have time to address last-minute gaps in your data, revisions from your advisor, or track down that one elusive reference. You want to make sure you present your best work and don’t miss the deadline.

Having the extra time built in is also useful because it allows you to have others proofread the draft before you submit it. You need to give these readers time to read your paper and give commentary. You then need to make updates to your manuscript. Fit in the time for this. Plan ahead.

Be Ethical

Ethics has been a make-or-break issue for a lot of careers lately. Here are a few tips to avoid ethical traps:

• Don’t change your data. Just don’t do it. Don’t try to beat the system. Odds are, you’ll get caught. And it will hurt your reputation in the science community.
  
• Discuss any results that seem to disprove your theory or conclusion. They often mean the experimental design needs to be revamped. Or they may become that crucial “next step” you discuss in your conclusion.
• Submit your work to only one journal at a time. Don’t try to publish the same work in more than one journal.

Dealing with Reviewer #2

The process of publishing in an academic journal can be rather taxing. Your draft will likely go through multiple rounds of peer review after you submit it. The reviewers oftentimes know who wrote the paper, but their identity is not revealed to the author. From there, a variety of things could happen. Your manuscript can be accepted, sent back for revisions, or rejected.

It is not uncommon for one or more reviewers to seem particularly harsh in their feedback. (Just look on social media for reviewer #2 memes.) Don’t take it personally. Perhaps they didn’t understand your work or were having a bad day. Take a breath (or maybe a day), then look at their criticism objectively. There may be a better way to explain your conclusions or one more experiment to try.

Reviewer criticism—even rejection—is rarely the indictment it feels like. Science is an ever-evolving field, and setbacks are inevitable. Use reviewers’ comments to your advantage to make your work stronger and build your professional reputation.