Writing begins as an idea which is built on to become a manuscript and later a publication. The process can be a daunting one especially if an author is new in the industry. As such the need to have a vivid picture of what is required in a scientific writing is important. Understanding the structure is also crucial as it determines if the manuscript will be accepted or rejected.
Understanding the components of the paper must be known to everyone interested in such writing. Ideally, the paper contains the Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion. Moreover, the author must understand what must be included in each section. As such this chapter discusses in detail the components of the manuscript
This section sets the tone of the paper by providing adequate relevant background information and states the problem that the paper seeks to address. It should start as a board concept and in the subsequent sentences narrow down the ideas into specific details. The information here state the impact of the study and should provide enough information to the readers to understand the topic. Citation in this section should be formal and follows the referencing styles available in the scientific fields.
The problem being addressed is known as the knowledge gap. As such the manuscript should elaborate on how the knowledge gap will be addressed. Further, the knowledge gap drives the hypothesis and questions that will be designed in the experiment.
This section presents the chronological order of scientific methods used and it gives the reader information on how to recreate your experiment. The procedural steps are taken, the specifics of the equipment used and statistical analysis done by the author should be discussed in this section. If the procedures in your writing use derived from another source, the author should provide detailed steps as from the source and cite the source. Additionally, procedural precautions that were undertaken in the experiment should be documented, for example, the tube was supposed to be centrifuged for 5 minutes, but was actually centrifuged for 1.
This section presents the key finding in an objective manner and sets the ground for the discussion section. It will include graphs, tables, figure and data that are necessary for interpreting your observation. The author summarizes each result using a descriptive statement and referring to corresponding tables, figures, and illustrations. Depending on how complex the study is, results should be presented as a series discussing each finding rather than an all-round finding.
It is important that the author discusses the finding from a scientific perspective rather than in a statistical manner. Statistical tests are credible in elaborating observed differences but fail to give meaning to the data generated from the study. Instead, the data is translated in scientific term while referring to statistical results as supplementary information or even in parenthesis.
Here the author interprets the results obtained from the experiment. Moreover, it should tire the introduction and the result sections. Ideally, the author should start by documenting the main findings in your manuscript. The discussion section restates the knowledge gap and discusses how the manuscript addresses the problem.
Further the section address the hypothesis and research question with specific evidence from the results. The explanations for ambiguous results should be clearly explained. Moreover, your explanation should provide clear opportunities for future research. However, this discussion should be concrete by referring to your results to support each of the interpretation. The conclusion, on the other hand, should summarize the outcome of the manuscript in a way that incorporates new insights or frames interesting questions that arose as a result of your research.