Mock Basic Science Article: The Structure of a Journal-Style Scientific Paper

Jacob Nelson¹

Abstract

Although it is the first section of your paper, the Abstract, by definition, must be written last since it will summarize the paper. To begin composing your Abstract, take whole sentences or key phrases from each section and put them in a sequence which summarizes the paper. Then set about revising or adding words to make it all cohesive and clear. As you become more proficient you will most likely compose the Abstract from scratch.

Introduction

The structure of the Introduction can be thought of as an inverted triangle – the broadest part at the top representing the most general information and focusing down to the specific problem you studied. Organize the information to present the more general aspects of the topic early in the Introduction, then narrow toward the more specific topical information that provides context, finally arriving at your statement of purpose and rationale. A good way to get on track is to sketch out the Introduction backwards; start with the specific purpose and then decide what is the scientific context in which you are asking the question(s) your study addresses. Once the scientific context is decided, then you’ll have a good sense of what level and type of general information with which the Introduction should begin.

Materials and Methods

Function: In this section you explain clearly how you carried out your study in the following general structure and organization (details as outlined): the the organism(s) studied (plant, animal, human, etc.) and their pre-experiment handling and care, and when and where the study was carried out (only if location and time are important factors); note that the term “subject” is used ONLY for human studies. If a field study, a description of the study site, including the significant physical and biological features, and precise location (latitude and longitude, map, etc); the experimental OR sampling design (i.e., how the experiment or study was structured.

For example, controls, treatments, the variable(s) measured, how many samples were collected, replication, etc.); the protocol for collecting data, i.e., how the experimental procedures were carried out, and, how the data were analyzed (qualitiative analyses and/or statistical procedures used). Organize your presentation so your reader will understand the logical flow of the experiment(s); subheadings work well for this purpose. Each experiment or procedure should be presented as a unit, even if it was broken up over time. The experimental design and procedure are sometimes most efficiently presented as an integrated unit, because otherwise it would be difficult to split them up. In general, provide enough quantitative detail (how much, how long, when, etc.) about your experimental protocol such that other scientists could reproduce your experiments. You should also indicate the statistical procedures used to analyze your results, including the probability level at which you determined significance (usually at 0.05 probability).

Results

The function of the Results section is to objectively present your key results, without interpretation, in an orderly and logical sequence using both text and illustrative materials (Tables and Figures). The results section always begins with text, reporting the key results and referring to your figures and tables as you proceed. Summaries of the statistical analyses may appear either in the text (usually parenthetically) or in the relevant Tables or Figures (in the legend or as footnotes to the Table or Figure). The Results section should be organized around Tables and/or Figures that should be sequenced to present your key findings in a logical order. The text of the Results section should be crafted to follow this sequence and highlight the evidence needed to answer the questions/hypotheses you investigated. Important negative results should be reported, too. Authors usually write the text of the results section based upon the sequence of Tables and Figures.

Discussion

The function of the Discussion is to interpret your results in light of what was already known about the subject of the investigation, and to explain our new understanding of the problem after taking your results into consideration. The Discussion will always connect to the Introduction by way of the question(s) or hypotheses you posed and the literature you cited, but it does not simply repeat or rearrange the Introduction. Instead, it tells how your study has moved us forward from the place you left us at the end of the Introduction.

Fundamental questions to answer here include: Do your results provide answers to your testable hypotheses? If so, how do you interpret your findings? Do your findings agree with what others have shown? If not, do they suggest an alternative explanation or perhaps a unforseen design flaw in your experiment (or theirs?). Given your conclusions, what is our new understanding of the problem you investigated and outlined in the Introduction?

Acknowledgements

Phasellus faucibus scelerisque eleifend donec pretium vulputate sapien nec. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Purus non enim praesent elementum. Id diam vel quam elementum pulvinar etiam non quam. Habitasse platea dictumst quisque sagittis purus. Sed adipiscing diam donec adipiscing tristique risus nec feugiat in. Morbi quis commodo odio aenean. Viverra accumsan in nisl nisi scelerisque eu ultrices vitae. Ullamcorper sit amet risus nullam eget. Vestibulum lectus mauris ultrices eros in. Risus quis varius quam quisque.

References

_{(Adapted from: https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/publichealth/amastyleguide)}

1. Book: Boyd B, Basic C, Bethem R, eds. Trace Quantitative Analysis by Mass Spectrometry. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons; 2004. Brownson, RC. Evidence-based Public Health. 2nd ed. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press; 2011. Venkat Narayan, KM. Diabetes Public Health: From Data to Policy. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press; 2011.
2. Book Chapter: Guyton JL, Crockarell JR. Fractures of acetabulum and pelvis. In: Canale ST, ed. Campbell’s Operative Orthopaedics. 10th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Mosby, Inc; 2003:2939-2984.
3. Online Book: Rudolph CD, Rudolph AM. Rudolph’s Pediatrics. 21st ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies; 2002. http://online.statref.com/Document/Document.aspx. Accessed August 22, 2007.
4. Webpage: Fast facts. National Osteoporosis Foundation website. http://www.nof.org/osteoporosis/diseasefacts.htm. Accessed August 27, 2007.
5. Official organization report published on a webpage: Office of Women’s Health, California Department of Public Health. California Adolescent Health 2009. http://www.cdph.ca.gov/report. Accessed January 5, 2011.
6. Print journal article with six or fewer authors: Janda JM, Abbott SL. The genus Aeromonas: taxonomy, pathogenicity, and infection. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2010;23(1):35-73. Kazerouni NN, Currier RJ, Hodgkinson C, Goldman S, Lorey F, Roberson M. Ancillary benefits of prenatal maternal serum screening achieved in the California program. Prenat Diagn. 2010;30 (10):981-987.
7. Print journal article with more than six authors: English PB, Sinclair AH, Ross Z, et al. Environmental health indicators of climate change for the United States: findings from the State Environmental Health Indicator Collaborative. Environ Health Perspect. 2009;117(11):1673-1681.
8. Online journal article with six or fewer authors; article has a DOI: Florez H, Martinez R, Chakra W, Strickman-Stein M, Levis S. Outdoor exercise reduces the risk of hypovitaminosis D in the obese. J Steroid Biochem Mol Bio. 2007;103(3-5):679-681. doi:10.1016 /j.jsbmb.2006.12.032.
9. Online journal article with more than six authors; article does not have a DOI: Siris ES, Miller PD, Barrett-Connor E, et al. Identification and fracture outcomes of undiagnosed low bone mineral density in postmenopausal women: results from the National Osteoporosis Risk Assessment. JAMA. 2001;286(22):2815-2822. http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/286/22 /2815. Accessed April 4, 2007.
10. Journal article with no named author or group name: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Licensure of a meningococcal conjugate vaccine (Menveo) and guidance for use – Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 2010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep.2010;59(9):273.