Sunday, 25 September, 2022

Atharva Blogs

Meeting all your writing needs

single post

  • Home
  • Anatomy of writing
Scientific Writing Tips

Anatomy of writing

Anatomy of writing

Anatomy of writing One of the most indispensable qualities of a scientific paper must be that it should communicate rather than make an impression. Conducting research is the initial step in the big cycle of exploring science. An important step is to make the results of the research accessible to a wider audience of the scientific community. That access is provided by writing and publishing your research in a peer-reviewed journal. The process of the publication provides that platform for the people of the scientific community to share their research. The entire process of conceptualizing your research, conducting it, collection and interpretation of the data, writing the first draft, submitting it to the journal for a peer-review is time-consuming and requires an abundance of patience. The whole process, over the years, have been so well documented, there are numerous guidelines available online on how to structure your paper in accordance to the requirement of the journal, but this post is not about the structural organization of the paper, rather about the need and focus to find the structure of the process of writing a scientific paper. Writing a scientific paper is totally different than conducting a scientific research protocol, writing requires a set of certain skills which are totally different than skills required for conducting research. There has to be a fine balance between the two mentioned skills to make sure both set of operations are actually able to communicate the core outcome of the research.

I always believed writing is about finding your own voice, this thought also holds true while writing a scientific paper, the voice that is able to communicate the outcomes of your research. It is often assumed that scientific papers are difficult to read due to various complex terminologies and a large chunk of data. I believe that the complexity of thought should not lead to a point where the expression behind that thought is taken over by the complex nature of it. This is where understanding the process of writing a scientific paper becomes so important, writing so well balanced that it communicates the notion behind the research without oversimplifying or compromising the scientific aspect of it.

The foundation of ideal scientific writing is based on how a narrative is built-up. By narrative, I mean how the connecting events of a scientific paper are joined and communicated.

Let take an example out of the introduction section. Even while writing the introduction section, it is often assumed that the section is basically made up of a plethora of information about the respective subject, but if the idea of setting up an engaging narrative is implied, there could be a lot of scope for improvement. Structuring the introduction based on the defining the subject, a major drawback/demerit regarding the treatment methodology or a certain aspect which has triggered the need to conduct the present research could possibly turn out to be a very well planned introduction. It is far more convenient to plan the introduction keeping in mind the rationale behind the study, connecting the events between the need to conduct research on a particular topic and supporting it with your objective forms a decent link to set up a strong foundation for the paper.

The strong foundation that is build up keeping in mind the narrative of the context will be utilized later on while the data is extracted and interpretation is on the cards.

It is not necessary that the observations in the form of numbers are to be represented in the discussion section via the help of constructed sentences. The narrative required to be constructed in the discussion section is totally different from the one already constructed in the introduction section.  The difference lies in the perspective of the writing, by the time discussion section is initiated, findings of the study are already represented through the observations, and it is the deft touch that is required in the writing of the discussion section which drives the perspective that is essential to view the overall outcome from the study.

I’ll conclude my post by briefly revising the meaning of anatomy of writing, the line basically is made up of two different notions of writing, a narrative style, another a perspective vision, both of these ideas is what should drive anyone trying to write a scientific paper. Both the ideas will immensely help the author, firstly to narrate an engaging set of plan which was planned to be executed, whereas the perspective vision gives more ways to understand and interpret the observational data.

0 comment on Anatomy of writing

Write a comment

Your email address will not be published.