Who
am I writing for?
This is always the first question you must ask
yourself before putting pen to paper/finger to keyboard. Am I writing for
fellow-scientists, inspired amateurs, supporting agencies, the person on
the street, or is it merely a report for the boss? Let’s assume you are
planning to publish the fruits of your labours in a given scientific journal.
Before you write one more word, get hold of the guide for authors of that
journal and study it thoroughly. Then read a few articles in recent numbers
of that journal to become familiar with its style and the idiosyncrasies
of its editor. And now, if you know something that other people want to
know, you’re in business.
Constructing
your article
Think of your article as a building. There is
a notice board telling you what it’s all about, who the creators are and
who financed the whole affair. The creators, in their wisdom, will see to
it that the roof is not put on before the walls are up and that the walls
are not built before the foundations are ready. Now you are the builder
and you have to see to it that your grand design is put in place in a clear,
logical manner.
The time-tested sequence for a typical scientific article is: Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results and Discussion, often followed by Conclusion(s). Then follow Acknowledgements and (Literature) References. For long articles a Summary may also be required. Title, Abstract, and (if required) Keywords, are only finalised (“finalized” for the purists) when the rest of your article is complete; so we’ll deal with them later.
Introduction
This can be compared to the foundations on which
your entire work rests. It informs your readers (think of them with every
word you write/type) about the following:
Aim: why am I writing this article? (Don’t say—even if it may be true—that the boss made you do it, or because you want to attend the congress at Pampoenpoort, where your aunt lives)
Scope: what aspects of the subject will I touch on, and to what depth?
Previous work: what work has been done before on my subject or related relevant subjects?
Hypothesis: what do I hope to demonstrate with my article and in what context?
To quote the definition of the word hypothesis from the revered Collins English Dictionary: a suggested explanation for a group of facts or phenomena, either accepted as a basis for further verification (working hypothesis) or accepted as likely to be true.
Materials
and Methods
The aim of this section is to describe the material
you have worked on and the methods you have used, in sufficient detail to
enable other researchers to repeat your work and test your results. If you
have studied subjects such as the morphology, anatomy, cytology, chemistry
or gene structure of plants you must cite the voucher specimens you have
made and the herbarium in which they can be consulted. Countless hours have
been wasted in the past because no voucher specimens of research material
were kept and the results could therefore not be tested and were not scientifically
meaningful. In taxonomic articles reference to vouchers is traditionally
made throughout the text and the methods used are often of a standard nature.
A section on Materials and Methods may therefore be superfluous in such
articles. If your article deals with a given area or locality, this must
be clearly defined.
Results
Results should be presented as objectively and
as clearly as possible. Sometimes it may be effective and economical to
discuss your results as you present them. In such cases a section on Discussion
may be superfluous. Generally it is better to keep the results separate
from your ideas about them. If nothing else, it makes it easier for your
readers to draw their own conclusions.
Discussion
Your results may answer the questions you raised
in the Introduction. In that case you may be allowed to blow your trumpet—softly.
You may not be so fortunate, and your results may not be what you expected
(“negative”). If your work was sound, these results are important. Perhaps
even more important than “positive” ones. (Remember Alexander Fleming and
his mouldy Petri dishes.)
Conclusions
In this section you may deal with the implications
of your findings and their possible bearing on other fields. You could remark
on the need for more research in this direction. However, you must be careful
not to sound like the scientist (quoted by Kemble Widmer) who wrote: It
is clear that much additional work will be required before a complete understanding
is attained, but who should have written: I don’t understand what’s going
on. Under Conclusions you can also give a brief summary or review of your
work—editor permitting.
Summary
Long papers—to say nothing of theses—may require
a highly condensed version of the work in 300–1 000 words.
Acknowledgements
It is an old tradition to thank colleagues and
others who have helped you to research, compile and improve your work. To
quote Kimble Widmer again: A scientist thanked person X for assistance with
the experiments, and person Y for valuable discussions. What he really meant
to say was: Person X did the work, and person Y explained to me what it
meant. Financial assistance and permission to publish may also be acknowledged
here.
Literature references
In most botanical publications these are arranged
according to the “alphabetical author and date system”. In the text usually
only the surname and the year of publication of the relevant work are given.
Under References at the end of the article author names are arranged alphabetically,
and the articles of an author chronologically. For further details you have
to inform yourself on the style of the publication you are writing for.
Title
Picture yourself scanning the table of contents
of a journal. Your decision to read or to ignore an article will in many
instances be based primarily on the title. Titles should therefore be as
informative as possible. In the interest of economy, however, they should
be as short as possible. A title such as A preliminary attempt at a contribution
towards an improvement of the understanding of the classification of the
plant genus Lens L.(Fabaceae) can easily be shortened by 75%. Titles are
often used in information-retrieval, abstracting and indexing. They should
not be longer than 12, or at most 20 words.
Key words
These are significant words used to describe
the contents of a document. Many journals limit their number to about 10.
They should be in the form of nouns linked to adjectives. Location should
be included and, in taxonomic articles, family and genus. They should include
words from the title.
Abstract
Abstracts should be written in such a way that
they can be used directly by abstracting journals/services. They should
convey the essence of the article but should be brief. Most journals limit
them to 15–200 words. They should refer to the geographical area concerned.
In taxonomic articles new taxa, new combinations and new names should be
given, unless there are too many. Don’t mention matters not discussed in
the article.
Table of contents
In long articles a table of contents is often
very useful because it provides an overview of the work.
Index
No taxonomic revision dealing with more than
a few species should be published without an index of the names of all taxa
mentioned. It obviously depends on the subject matter of other lengthy articles
whether an index is meaningful.
Figures and tables
Here again you have to follow the style of the
publication you are writing for. But a few guidelines may be useful: A line
that is not solid in the original will not be solid in the final reproduction.
Solid lines, even fine ones, will print solid if they are black and the
printers know their job. Line drawings reproduce much more neatly if the
original is twice the size of the final print. Figures should be designed
to fit the format of the publication they are meant for. If a figure is
to occupy a whole page, allow space for the caption. Scale bars or scale
lines are generally more user- and editor-friendly than scales given in
the caption. Tables usually look better without vertical lines. They can
often be reduced in width by interchanging primary horizontal and vertical
heads. Figures and tables are numbered in the sequence in which they are
mentioned in the text.
Conclusion
Now the building is complete and you may think
the job is done. Not so fast! The building inspector is still to come! Remember:
to avoid criticism you must say nothing, do nothing, be nothing. The next
instalment in this series will therefore deal with criticism and corrections
and with the final conclusion.
—by Dr Otto Leistner
SABONET News 4.1: 7
