| Science papers, the kind you find in professional | | | | Say what you set out to do, and what you |
| journals, are usually write-ups of experiments, or | | | | expected to happen, which is to say, lay out your |
| other formal investigations. They follow a set | | | | hypothesis. It's a good idea to lay out the null |
| structure, based on the standard architecture of | | | | hypothesis too. E-mail me if you want this defined. |
| experiments themselves. | | | | METHOD (sometimes called other things, remember) |
| Science articles, by contrast, in magazines, are more | | | | Design: First describe the study's design, i.e., whether |
| relaxed versions of science papers, with much more | | | | it's double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, or |
| discussion of the wider importance of a particular | | | | whatever. |
| investigation, or group of investigations, and what | | | | Participants: Then describe the group you involved. |
| makes them so interesting. | | | | Say things like this: 'We included 8 patients (6 |
| There's more than one way to do an article. (Your | | | | women, 2 men: age range 21-35 years: mean |
| editor chooses which way.) For papers, however, | | | | ± SD; 29 ± 6 years). All patients had |
| there is only one formula, with no real variation. I'll lay | | | | presented the same condition. None of the patients |
| this out for you here, without going into the | | | | had any other medical conditions, or were on any |
| philosophy of scientific inquiry--I'll assume you know | | | | medications that could affect their response to the |
| why experiments are designed the way they are. (If | | | | treatment.' |
| you don't know, and you want to, send me an e-mail | | | | Materials: List everything you used, even |
| about it.) | | | | questionnaires and handouts. (Blank specimen copies |
| Here are the sections. | | | | of these can go at the very end of the article, as |
| The Effect of X on Y | | | | appendices.) |
| G. Doctor and K. Researcher | | | | Procedure: Write out EXACTLY what you did--in such |
| ________________________ | | | | detail that anyone can reduplicate your experiment. |
| From the Department of Planetary Sciences, | | | | This must be childishly explicit. |
| Gudger College, andthe Department of Rocketry, | | | | Data (or Data Analysis): Say how you crunch your |
| Universityof Blaupunkt | | | | numbers. There needs to be a measure of |
| [First comes an 'abstract', the paper written in | | | | centralizing tendency, and a measure of dispersal. |
| miniature - it's actually the last thing you write. Justify | | | | After that, studies differ. Most of us just ask |
| the right margin for this little section.] | | | | statisticians what we're supposed to do. |
| Background: Say the known scientific mechanism | | | | Results: Lay out the raw data. You can do this in |
| you're dealing with. Next, say what aspect of it is not | | | | text, but you should also include some tabulation. |
| yet understood. Suggest your mental model that | | | | After that, you can interpret with graphs, though |
| could explain that not-understood aspect. | | | | some people like to leave these for the next section, |
| Hypothesize that if you're right, then if you do X | | | | which is what you conclude from your results. Graphs |
| you'll get Y. | | | | are specialised. Make sure you know the definitions |
| Objective (or 'Aim'): 'To assess whether... [say your | | | | of 'bar chart' and 'histogram' (they're not the same, |
| hypothesis].' | | | | even if they look alike). Don't use scattergrams |
| Method (sometimes 'Method and Materials', | | | | (sometimes called 'scattergraphs')--they're for |
| sometimes 'Procedure'): 'In a double-blind randomized | | | | correlation studies, not controlled experiments. Pie |
| placebo-controlled study, 8 patients (21-35 years) | | | | charts are only for percentage shares of things, as a |
| each received [whatever it was]. Assessment was at | | | | rule. |
| baseline and at 14 days after treatment.' You can | | | | Conclusion: Your verdict, expressed in terms of |
| add a word here about how you managed the | | | | whether your results can or cannot support your |
| statistics. | | | | hypothesis. Keep this short. |
| Results: 'Assessment at 14 days post-treatment | | | | Discussion: This is the longest and most entertaining |
| showed a significant... [lay it out very briefly].' | | | | section. It's where you quibble with your own study. |
| Conclusion: 'We show for the first time that [X has | | | | You point out all the weaknesses in your sampling |
| an effect on Y].' | | | | strategy, your management of variables, your choice |
| [Now you start the paper itself.] | | | | of control group strategy, and so on. The idea is to |
| BACKGROUND (sometimes called INTRODUCTION) | | | | qualify your answer, so that no one else can. This |
| Say what's known about the big thing you're | | | | leads naturally into the last paragraph, where you |
| investigating. List all the relevant studies. | | | | normally say that 'future studies should consider...' |
| Say what's missing from all the studies so far. | | | | (whatever you left out or did wrong). |