Hi. I m Karen McKee and today I m going to cover some common beginner
mistakes in writing a scientific paper. As a reviewer of manuscripts submitted to journals,
I often see such mistakes. Also, some of these mistakes I made early in my science career.
So here are some of the most common mistakes that I often see in papers but that are easy
to avoid when you are aware of them. Let's begin with the title of the paper.
A common mistake is to write a title that is too broad and does not indicate what the study
found. For example, a title such as this one that just states the broad topic of the research.
Response of coastal wetlands to sea-level rise. Is this a study about all coastal wetlands? In all
geographic locations? Unless it's a review paper, probably not. More importantly,
this hypothetical title does not reveal what the study found. Consider this title.
Someone reading just the title knows that we specifically studied mangroves,
a type of coastal wetland, and conducted the work in the Caribbean Region. The title also
explains a key finding of the paper, which is that these mangroves adjust their soil elevations in
relation to sea level through biological, rather than just physical, processes.
You also want to avoid unnecessary phrases such as a study of or an investigation into,
As well as jargon, acronyms, and abbreviations,. The abstract is
an important component of a scientific paper that beginning authors often struggle with.
Some authors make the mistake of creating an abstract using sentences cut and pasted
from the paper narrative instead of crafting a unique summary of the work that clearly states why
the work was conducted, how it was done, what was found, and why it's important. In some cases, the
abstract may not accurately reflect what was found in the study or includes sweeping generalizations
that sound good but are not supported by the data. Take the time to write an abstract
that is accurate and that compels the reader to download and read your paper. In this example,
the abstract begins with the aim or purpose of the study which was to better understand the
biological controls allowing coastal ecosystems to adjust to changing sea level. The next section
describes the location of the study along the Caribbean coast of Central America. The next
section describes how biological processes were manipulated to cause a change in soil elevation.
The results were then stated concisely. That nutrient treatment altered plant root production
which in turn affected the rate and direction of soil elevation change. The conclusions put
the findings into a broader perspective with implications for predicting future effects of
rising sea level on this ecosystem. The result is a concise, unique summary of the paper.
A common mistake made in writing the introduction is to fail to articulate the value of the paper to
the reader. Novice writers assume the editors and reviewers will know why the work is important.
But this is a mistake. You need to spell out the benefit of your information to the field
of study and why readers of the journal need that information. Part of convincing a journal
to publish your paper is to show them that your paper will be useful to their readers.
To be of value, your paper must provide a solution to a problem, resolve a conflict in
the literature, challenge a prevailing paradigm or something else that changes how the reader
thinks about your topic. This benefit must be clearly articulated in the introduction.
Here is one example. In this paper, we pointed out in the first sentence that our work was
important not only to an understanding of how plant communities are organized
but the information could be used to guide restoration of important coastal ecosystems.
The cost of not knowing these things was given in the next sentence.
That rapid reestablishment of native vegetation, especially after disturbance,
is important in preventing soil erosion, invasion by exotic species, and other unwanted outcomes.
Pointing out the benefit to readers was essential to getting this paper accepted
by this particular journal, which publishes papers showing how ecological research can be
applied to solving an environmental problem. In other words, we explained how our work would
be of interest to this journal s readers and how it addressed the aim of the journal.
One common mistake made in writing the methods section is giving inadequate descriptions of
techniques and equipment. You need to provide sufficient details to allow someone else to repeat
your study using the exact same experimental design, test subjects, instruments, analytical
procedures, and statistics. Let's look at an example. In this paper on plant flood tolerance,
I described how tree seedlings responded to low oxygen concentrations in the root zone.
In the methods, I first described in detail the plant material used in the study. Where seedlings
were collected and how they were handled prior to and during experimentation. Next, I described
the experimental procedures used to measure relative responses of three species to low oxygen
tensions in solution culture. There was also information about the general growing conditions
in the growth chamber used in the study. The next subsection described the physiological
measurements, including net photosynthesis and transpiration as well as root respiration.
Notice that these descriptions included precautions that were taken to ensure consistency
and to avoid spurious responses. Calculations that were made were also spelled out.
The next section described how internal root oxygen concentrations were measured using
one of two instruments, along with manufacturer information, which another researcher would need
to know to repeat the study. The next subsection described how plant growth responses to aeration
treatments were conducted. This description included references to standard methods used
to determine root specific gravity. Doing so reduces the amount of text needed to describe
the method. The final subsection described the statistical analyses used to assess differences
observed among species and between aeration treatments. When I write the methods section,
I try to envision someone repeating each step I took and then provide the details they need
to be consistent and to avoid mistakes. It's helpful to get in the habit of writing
such details in a lab or field notebook while conducting your study so that when you sit down
to write the methods, perhaps a year later, you have all the pertinent information at hand.
One of the most common mistakes in writing the results is to repeat in excruciating detail what
is shown in tables and figures. For example, the nitrogen concentration was high in January,
a bit lower in February, even lower in March, and reached the lowest point in mid-July,
after which the concentration increased from August to December. Instead,
describe general patterns in the data. Nitrogen concentrations fluctuated seasonally from a high
in mid-winter to a low in mid-summer. Let the reader look at the figure to get the details.
Here's another example from a published paper showing how to concisely summarize patterns
shown in graphs. The text summarizes the effect of aeration treatment on internal
root oxygen concentrations in three species. Root oxygen concentrations declined from 16 to
below 5 percent within 6 hours after L. racemosa and A. germinans were subjected to N2 purging.
On re-aeration, root oxygen concentrations began to recover to pretreatment values. In contrast,
oxygen concentrations inside R. mangle roots were independent of external oxygen tensions.
The reader can look at the graphs to see precisely how root oxygen concentrations varied.
Another mistake people make in writing the results is to use statistical jargon to describe
results. For example, there was a significant interaction between flooding and salinity on
plant growth (P = 0.0012). This statement fails to tell the reader what happened.
Instead, say the negative effect of flooding on plant growth was greatest
when salinity was high (salinity x flooding interaction, P = 0.0012).
A common mistake inexperienced writers make in the discussion is to fail to interpret the data
and instead just repeat the results with a few citations thrown in here and there.
The discussion is where you explain your data and compare it to previous work. Let s look
at the discussion of the root aeration study. It begins by describing previous work with one of the
three species that showed a decline in root oxygen concentrations under hypoxic solution culture.
And then points out that the results of the current study agree with respect to this species,
A. germinans. But the new data show interspecific differences in the ability of mangrove seedlings
to avoid root oxygen deficiencies And root oxygen deficiencies have subsequent
consequences for physiology and growth. There is some repetition of the results,
but it is done in conjunction with interpretation of the data and comparison with previous work.
The discussion then continues with a description of the factors that may have led to different
responses by the three species to hypoxia. The discussion ends with the implications
of the results for understanding the ecology of these intertidal trees.
A common mistake in writing the conclusions is to provide a summary rather than put the study
findings into a broader perspective. There s nothing wrong with a summary, but if your
target journal requires a conclusions section, you need to do more than summarize the findings.
In the sea-level rise paper, the conclusions begin by putting the work into a historical perspective,
describing what has been previously done. This information then leads naturally to a
description of the insights provided by our study of Caribbean mangrove ecosystems.
The next paragraph further elaborates on the importance of the work to understanding response
of mangrove ecosystems to sea-level rise in the Caribbean region. The section ends by
pointing out how this information is important to the proper management of these forests.
Well, those are some of the most common writing mistakes I see in scientific papers.
For more examples of writing mistakes, check out the videos listed in the description below.
And don t forget to hit the like button if you find this information helpful.