Troubleshooting by IMRaD section
Title, Keywords, Abstract
I don’t know how to write a title
See: Choosing a title
How to choose good keywords?
A few tips:
- Be specific – key phrases may be better than single keywords
- Search your keywords – see if similar papers come up
- Use synonyms – if multiple terms exist for the same concept, list them as a keyword
- Use standardised terms – rather than inviting new phrases
- Don’t use the words that are already in your title
Should I write the abstract first or last?
Last, to make sure that the abstract accurately reflects the contents, findings, and conclusions of your paper. First, if you already know what you’re roughly going to conclude (but than the abstract serves as a mini-outline to guide the writing, rather than a finalised summary).
See also: Abstract
Introduction
I don’t know how to explain the knowledge gap
The tricky thing about knowledge gaps is that they’re gaps, and gaps are things that don’t exist. Instead of trying to describe that doesn’t exist, it’s easier to describe its surroundings. Kind of like the outlines of the gap. In practical terms, that means describing what is known: the current state of knowledge.
My introduction is too long
The purpose of the introduction is not to provide background, but simply to explain why the research matters. Why does it matter broadly, what gap(s) does it address, and how does it address them? If information does not address any of these questions directly, it should not be included in the Introduction.
See also: IMRaD sections & Introduction logic
Methods
I can’t tell how much detail is too much
You need enough detail so that your reader understand how to reproduce your research. That sounds incredibly vague, so allow me to illustrate it.
Say you I wanted to explain to you, someone who’s never been in my home, how to find a wine glass in my kitchen.
Too detailed would be:
- Enter the kitchen by pushing open the wooden door.
- Step inside and look around. Identify the cupboards that are hanging on the wall.
- Step forward towards the cupboard all the way on the right.
- Lift your hand.
- Open the cupboard by pulling at the handle.
- You will find wine glasses on the middle shelf
Too little detail would be:
- It’s in the kitchen.
Enough detail would be:
- If you enter the kitchen, it’s in the cupboard on the far right on the middle shelf.
However, if you’d visited me before knew where the mugs are, this could work too:
- In the cupboard with all the mugs.
So, how much detail you need? It depends on who you’re writing for, and what context clues they have.
Results
I’m not sure how to write about my figures without repeating what they already show
Assuming you’re doing experimental work, the purpose of figures is generally to present data points and summarise data. The purpose of the results section is to answer the research questions by identifying patterns in the data. So the results text should highlight patterns, not describe each data point.
See also: Describing the results
I don’t know which results to include
The results section consists of roughly two parts:
- Supporting results, which justify your main results
- Main results, which answer the research questions
Given this structure, you can start by including the results that answer part of your research (sub-)questions.
I don’t trust my findings
This usually indicates that you haven’t justified your research fully. Perhaps you’re not sure why you measured a specific variable, why you used a particular approach, or don’t trust your choice of statistical analysis. Fix: write down why you made these choices, and why they are good choices within the constraints of your research (see Capturing research decisions).
But I measured it wrong/my data is messy/etc.
If you used calibrated tools, then the measurements themselves should be fine. If your data is messy, that is normal, and why statistical analyses were invented.
Discussion
My Discussion repeats the Results
This tends to happen for two reasons:
- Not fully understanding what the Discussion is supposed to do The purpose of the Discussion is to contribute knowledge, by arguing why your interpretation of the data is the best current possible interpretation. See also: Know the Product & Discussion arguments
- Being afraid of saying something potentially stupid or wrong The Discussion requires that you generalise based on your findings. You found sometime about 1 or 2 sites/populations/etc, now you have to generalise that to a broader set of sites/populations/etc. This can be scary, because there is inherent uncertainty. See also: Interpreting the findings
I can’t find any relevant literature/nobody has studied my topic
If you can’t find any literature, you can simply widen your search. If you were looking for literature on mangrove forests in the Pearl River Delta in south China, you could widen your search by looking for research on other forests in that delta, or by looking in all of south China, or even all of south-east Asia. Most of the time, you will find more literature if you zoom out just a little.
No literature or narrow research question?
Often, this also indicates that your research questions are too narrow, so it’s worth checking what question you’re trying to answer.
See also: Interpreting the findings & Calibrating research questions & Supporting with evidence
I don’t know how to make sense of the literature
Just reading literature can feel a tad overwhelming. Instead, set a goal. What are you trying to find out? What questions are you trying to answer? Using the research questions as a goal post can help a lot in making sense of all the literature (and your findings).
I feel weird talking about the limitations of my study
The point of the limitations section is not to write everything that’s wrong with your study. It’s simply to address what wasn’t possible yet within the constraints of your current study, and to explain how these limitations could be addressed in follow-up research. This section is key for grant proposals, that need to justify why their research is needed.
How to handle conflicting findings or literature?
Embrace them! A strong Discussion includes and addresses conflicting evidence accurately. It makes for a better Discussion. In other words: acknowledge the conflict, and explain why your conclusions still holds (e.g. different context, methodology, scale, etc.) — or update your conclusion if needed.
See also: Interpreting the findings
How do write the Conclusions/Implications/Research recommendations/Outlook?
Address the broader problem you raised in the first paragraph of the Introduction.
See also: Writing the Implications
Supplementary Materials
How to decide what goes in the supplementary materials?
It depends. Generally, supporting elements that would take up too much space in the main text go in the supplement. Here are some examples:
- Extensive literature reviews to support statements made in the Introduction.
- Detailed methods protocols that are not necessary for understanding how the results were obtained (but are needed to reproduce the research accurately).
- Raw datasets and analysis code (if not hosted online).
- Detailed mathematical derivations or statistical proofs
- Interview transcripts or survey instruments (for qualitative work)
- Additional figures
- Calibration curves
Troubleshooting slow progress
I don’t have any data yet
No problem! Start by capturing your research decisions.
I’m not ready to start writing, but my supervisor says I am
Trust your supervisor. They more understanding with the research process and are most likely better able to judge when it’s time to start writing.
If you don’t feel ready: that’s okay. Permission to write bad, unready drafts. It’s better to start producing something that you’ll delete later, than produce nothing at all. That’s the beauty of words: you can just delete them, and nothing bad will happen. Besides, thinking happens while you write, and your thinking will need to develop a lot during the development of the paper (see also: Interpreting the findings).
I’ve lost motivation
Scientific papers are hard cognitive work, so it’s normally to lose motivation sometimes. There are external ways to increase motivation, such as using body doubling, pomodoro, etc.
Alternatively, you can identify what’s causing your loss of motivation and address this. This will require some reflection on your writing process, but is helpful in improving your writing process long-term. Two common causes + solutions are:
- Not knowing what to write: This is a very common culprit, because you’ve done your research, but what are you actually supposed to write? I recommend starting with getting the content on paper: the reasoning for your research, how you carried it out, what you find. Structure comes later. See also: Capturing research decisions & Interpreting the findings
- Trying to write, structure, and edit at the same time. Writing to build knowledge, structuring the text for your audience, and editing the language are different cognitive tasks. Trying to do them all at once is exhausting, and usually not necessary. Content first, structure second, language last. See also: Two types of writing
Alternatively, use AI to figure out what’s got you stuck. Here’s a prompt to try:
AI Prompt
I'm stuck on a scientific paper I'm trying to write. I've lost motivation and I'm trying to figure out why. Keep asking me questions/asking me to explain in more detail to help me figure out where I'm stuck
I can’t get any words on paper/everything sounds stupid
Bad luck. You have to get the stupid words on paper before you can make them sound smart. Don’t compare your messy drafts to polished publications (I still have to remind myself of this regularly). It’s like comparing cake better to a finished, decorated cake. They’re just not the same thing.
A simple trick to override your inner critic is to set a timer for ten minutes and write the most stupid, dumb, ugly, ridiculous, whatever version of what it is you’re writing.
Troubleshooting feedback
I’m afraid to share my work/worried it won’t be good
First, every researcher who’s ever written a paper knows that the first drafts are messy, so don’t worry about that too hard. Second, you don’t necessarily have to share your work in written form. You can also give a PowerPoint presentation, or just discuss things during a chat (see also: Involving your writing team). Third, simply tidying your draft a little bit can already make it look better (see: Sharing work-in-progress).
The reviewer says the writing should be edited by a native speaker
Usually, the don’t mean the language is bad, but that your text is not conveying clearly enough what your reader expected to read. More often than not, the issue is not whether you’re a native speaker, but that your writing is imprecise.
See: Clear thinking, precise language
Requests for additional work: can you also do this experiment?
If a reviewer (or co-author) request additional data, they have the wrong expectation about your paper. You have two options:
- Produce the extra data
- Manage their expectations.
The second option is generally faster. To do this, you need to write more clearly in the Aims & Scope section of the paper what you will do and not do in this paper.
See also: IMRaD sections
My supervisor keeps giving feedback on the wrong things
If your supervisor keeps commenting on details like grammar or spelling, when you’re not there yet, tell them what you need feedback on instead.
See also: Involving your writing team & Sharing work-in-progress
The reviewers all want something different/feedback is contradictory
If reviewers or co-authors (or supervisors) all want you to do something differently, the first step is to find out why they all want something differently. Have you set clear expectations on what your paper was going to deliver, in the Aims & Scope section of the Introduction?
The second step is deciding who’s right. Since you are the first author, you get the final call.
Basic questions
How long should a paragraph be?
250 words, roughly.
How should I organise the methods?
By research question. See also: Aligning structure across sections
How long should each section be?
Depends on how many research questions you have. See: Section length (word counts)
What tense should I write in?
Depends on (1) your field’s conventions (check journal articles in your target journal) and your own preferences. I prefer active, present tense as much as possible because it’s generally easier to comprehend.
What’s the difference between Results and Discussion?
Both answer the research question, but at different scales. Results concludes within the boundaries of your data. Discussion takes those conclusions further, applying them beyond your specific study context. E.g. if you were studying the goldfish in your living room, that’s what you write about in your Results. In the Discussion, you’d draw conclusions about goldfish globally.