Technical papers

Technical papers

Prof. Atif Iqbal (Fellow, IET (UK) and IE (India))

Adapted from original lecture of:

Simon Judd, Prof.

Chemical Engineering, QU Research Methodologies, 2018

Writing a paper: method

There is no fixed method for writing a good research paper ..

.. but you can still avoid writing a bad one

Suggested steps to writing papers

Identify message

Define structure

Determine key information to include

Define information needing introducing

Write draft

Classis structure of technical research paper

1. Title

2. Abstract

3. Introduction 4. Methods

5. Results

6. Discussion 7. Conclusions

So, the structure of the paper …

… differs from the order it’s written

1. Results

2. Discussion 3. Conclusions 4. Methods

5. Introduction 6. Abstract 7. Title

• The balance of the paper has to be right

• emphasis should be placed on key new knowledge

• The paper should

not normally exceed

~5000 words

Deciding the message

Research Methodologies, July 2018

Assumptions

• You will normally decide to write a paper when you have:

• sufficient information from the literature for a review

• sufficient information or data from experiments or other studies for a research article

• This then means that:

• the results or outcomes are known

• their significance is appreciated

Who is going to read it?

• Every paper has a market, i.e.

prospective readers of the paper

• Do they see what you see?

• Do they understand what you understand

• Is it easy to read?

• Is it useful for them?

• Will they buy what your selling?

• Decide what knowledge (information) you want the reader to have once they have read your paper

The type of reader should help to inform the selection of the journal

Defining the structure

Research Methodologies, July 2018

Structure

• The structure of the paper is generally fixed

• The structure of the Results and Discussion sections can vary, but must be defined to aid understanding:

• the paper should be structured for the benefit of the reader, not just to make it easier to write.

• The message must be delivered with the minimum possible number of graphs and tables :

• some journals impose a formal limit on the number of these

• journals generally favour figures over tables

• ANY DATA OR CORRELATIONS WHICH DO NOT

ULTIMATELY LEAD TO THE DELIVERY OF THE MESSAGE SHOULD BE EXCLUDED

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Structure

• The graphs and tables need to be placed in the appropriate sequence:

Graph 1

Graph 2

Graph 3

Graph 4

Graph 5

Does the story build?

Are they all needed?

Key information

Research Methodologies, July 2018

For an individual graph/table ..

Describe

Compare

Explain

Data trend description

1. Identify the data or data trends from the graphs and tables that you wish the reader to focus on 2. Where possible include data quality assurance

information:

a. If comparing data provide direct evidence of comparison.

• use statistical analysis, or simply define differences between ranges.

b. Use appropriate statistical analyses of data, and include error bars where possible:

• standard deviation is only appropriate for data which is normally distributed.

Data trend description: general

1. Be specific.

2. Avoid too many general statements (qualitative) 3. Do not waste words:

use the phrases “as shown in ..” or “Table/Figure X shows ..”. For example:

The phrase:

• As shown in Figure 1, the removal efficiency decreased with loading rate.

is both a specific and wastes words. Instead write:

• The removal efficiency decreased from 85%±5% to 55%±4%

as the loading rate increased from 2.3±0.3 kg.d^-1 to 3.5±0.2 kg.d^-1 (Figure 1)

Data comparison and context

• Identify comparable data from the literature which either agrees with or contradicts your own data

• Reinforce the point you are trying to make.

• Use specific data not general statements:

Data explanation

• It is useful to provide a specific explanation of a particular figure or table, e.g.:

• the relationship between loading and motor efficiency

• Use specific referenced statements to provide the explanation

• Focus on explaining the points that are

needed in building the overall discussion.

• Ignore data that is not relevant to the

discussion

Discussing the results

Research Methodologies, July 2018

The Discussion

• The discussion is intended to describe the ideas, models, mechanisms and theories relating to your work, and lead the reader through a comparison of these with your data.

• It provides the overall intellectual contribution of the paper

• It delivers the overall message and demonstrates the contribution to knowledge

• Bring out the most important points first:

• What does the paper really say, and what has the reader learnt?

• Good papers have a good discussion – but not necessarily a long one:

• Be clear and concise

Introduction

• The Introduction provides the background to the paper and sets the scene for the reader

• It should direct the reader towards the point of the paper, i.e. the general aim or individual objectives of the work

• Split into 4 sections:

• An explanation of the problem/driver for work

• The work previously undertaken, and by whom

• The gap in knowledge

• The aim and objectives (i.e. what the paper should be delivering)

Introduction

• Keep it short, do not waste space on

unnecessary information:

• 500 words should be sufficient.

• Introduce only the aspects that are

important to the paper you are writing.

• Ensure the introduction indicates the novelty of the work

• Make it clear what you will deliver

The current paper further explores the use of

surfactants as bubble

modifiers for the flotation of algae cells. Specifically, the aims are to determine a) the most appropriate surfactant character for PosiDAF; b) the most appropriate

PosiDAF operational

parameters; and c) PosiDAF performance for a variety of algae species

Conclusion

The Conclusion should:

a) draw together the most important results and their consequences:

• there is inevitably some repetition of previous sections, but this is ok because …

• some readers read only the Conclusion of the paper b) effectively and concisely deliver the message:

• this must be clear and, preferably, (semi) quantitative c) deliver on the aims and objectives:

• each aim/objective should have a corresponding conclusion

Abstract

• The reader has been lured into your paper by the title

• They then want to know if it is worth reading

• You must convince them it is

• Tell the reader in as few sentences as possible what they will find

• An abstract is NOT an introduction, but a CONCISE summary of the work:

• Include the outcomes

• Stress the importance/originality of the work

• Keep it to 200-250 words

Abstract: a rough guide

• One or two sentences for each of the following:

• Driver for work

• Approach taken

• Key results

• Conclusions

Title

• The title is first thing people see: the hook with which to catch them:

• Be direct

• Be meaningful, but most of all ..

• Be brief

• You want potential readers (citations) to be drawn to your paper and select it easily from a list

Acknowledgements

• Always remember to acknowledge the people paying for the work and anybody else that has helped

• Use this section to indicate any legal issues

This [publication, report, etc.] was made possible by

NPRP grant # [ ] from the Qatar National Research Fund (a member of Qatar Foundation). The statements made herein are solely the responsibility of the author[s].

References

• The quality and consistency with which you format your references reflects the quality of the paper.

• Take the time to do it properly: it reassures the

reader (or, more specifically, the reviewers) that the authors are careful in their work

• Format according to journal instructions

Writing research

papers and proposals:

Ten top tips

Anecdotal information

Avoid including anecdotal (unreliable) and irrelevant information

Don’t mention:

• individual staff

• fellow students/friends

• project funders

• other than in the Acknowledgments

• the weather

• etc

Relevance

• Background information must be relevant and focused.

• Statement of facts or description of mechanisms should:

• make a point relevant to the current study

• help interpret results from the current study.

• information required only to substantiate outcomes of the proposed study:

• applies as much to the background and introduction as to other sections

Stating the obvious

• Material be appropriate for the readership.

It is not necessary to provide:

• textbook information on a subject

• definitions of established, widely/understood terms

to specialist researchers or practitioners in the field

Also

• Avoid jargon or fabricated abbreviations

• Define unusual abbreviations

Hyperbole and subjectivity

Avoid subjectivity

• opinions, feelings, excuses Avoid use of superlatives

• huge, gigantic, incredible, exciting, excellent

.. or other hyperbole

• disastrous, awful

Proof

Avoid claims of proof.

• Requirements for scientific proof are extremely rigorous

• Highly doubtful that any single

experiment can be so well controlled that its conclusions can be regarded as proof

• Generated data may strongly support a position, or may reject a hypothesis, but are unlikely to provide proof

Ambiguity

Always proofread for:

• accuracy

• what is written is what was intended to be written

• comprehension

• what is written can be understood by others.

• It is essential that what is written, and

specifically how it is perceived, is what is intended

• There should be no possibility of written work being misunderstood or

misinterpreted

• try to be grammatically correct

Poor structure/format

Avoid:

• Sentence length paragraphs

• A paragraph is a unit of thought that develops an idea.

• Should contain a topic sentence that states the idea to be developed, plus additional sentences that develop the idea started by the topic sentence.

• Misplacing of content:

• Experimental details in the results section

• Results in the experimental section

• Conclusions in results section

• etc

Anthropomorphism

• Anthropomorphism is attributing things with human characteristics:

• type of oversimplification

• clumsy explanation of action or mechanism

• EG (taken from an MSc thesis):

• Sodium wants to move down the chemical gradient toward the compartment with the lower concentration

should be:

• Sodium tends to move down the chemical gradient toward the compartment with the lower concentration under the action of osmosis

• Idea behind original statement is correct, but the statement itself suggests that sodium has free will, which is not true.

Superficial content

• Avoid superficial or pointless content:

• Purpose of a discussion is to interpret and

explain the results, not to simply state them in a different way

• Credibility of explanations greatly increased by reference to the literature

• Always try to offer an explanation:

• Better to come up with an incorrect but consistent explanation, supported by the literature, than to fail to provide an explanation at all

Precision

• Adhere to appropriate degree of precision:

• Use appropriate number of decimal places (if decimal places are needed) to report mean values and other values calculated from data

• number of decimal places and/or significant figures must reflect degree of precision of original measurement

• include statistical analysis if possible